In Trump v. United States, the actual distance between the majority and dissent is not vast. As Justice Barrett's concurrence points out, there is "substantial agreement" on certain points. Justice ...

This story is free to read because readers choose to support LAist. If you find value in independent local reporting, make a donation to power our newsroom today. When the Supreme Court dramatically ...

There is no textual basis for "immunity" as such, but there are structural reasons why some degree of insulation is inevitable. Justice Barrett's concurring opinion in Trump v. United States is more ...

The breadth of Monday’s Supreme Court decision largely shields former President Trump from criminal prosecution, while raising questions about the extent future presidents can take actions that would ...

(WASHINGTON) — In a long-awaited decision, the United States Supreme Court found that former President Donald Trump has some executive immunity for official acts committed as president, leaving ...

While the Supreme Court imbued the presidency with untold power, hobbled federal agency power and hollowed out the administrative state this term, it was actually amassing power to itself. In Trump v.

Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner suggested in a Tuesday video that President Joe Biden utilize the Supreme Court’s Monday immunity ruling to prevent former President Donald Trump’s reelection ...

Donald Trump is arguing to the Supreme Court that they have already given him “unrestricted power” to fire people. In July, the Supreme Court ruled that “the President’s management of the executive ...

When the Supreme Court dramatically expanded presidential power yesterday, it continued a trend that's been going in one direction for a long time. Take this headline from an essay in the Wall Street ...