The Supreme Court on Friday upended a 40-year-old decision that made it easier for the federal government to regulate the environment, public health, workplace safety and consumer protections, delivering a far-reaching and potentially lucrative victory to business interests.
Read More
The vice president delivered remarks to the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority at their national convention in Indianapolis.
Read More
Dayonta McClinton was convicted of robbing a CVS pharmacy in Indianapolis but acquitted of murder by a jury. A judge gave McClinton an extra 13 years in prison for the killing anyway.
Read More
The case has profound potential effects on elections and democracy, and it is also a fresh test for the court that increasingly has been criticized as having become politicized.
Read More
While the Supreme Court is still expected to issue a ruling or order on the case this week, its continued silence has amped up the tension in years-long drama over the fate of TikTok.
States argue the laws are necessary as online porn, including hardcore obscene material, has become almost instantaneous to access on smartphones online.
The Supreme Court on Friday will take up TikTok’s high-stakes challenge to a federal law that would effectively shut down the wildly popular video-sharing platform this month unless the company divests from Chinese ownership.
Five of the nine justices said President-elect Donald Trump’s immunity concerns about evidence presented at his trial can be addressed “in the ordinary course on appeal.”
If the government prevails as it did in a lower court, TikTok says it would shut down its U.S. platform by Jan. 19, leaving creators scrambling to redefine their futures.
Thomas has agreed to follow updated requirements on reporting trips and gifts, including clearer guidelines on hospitality from friends, the U.S. Judicial Conference wrote.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. on Tuesday warned that judges nationwide are under increasing threat from violence, intimidation, disinformation and officials threatening to defy lawful court decisions.
The justices will hear arguments Jan. 10 about whether the law impermissibly restricts speech in violation of the First Amendment.
The court said it would take up a business-backed appeal that could make it easier to challenge federal regulations.
The justices heard arguments in November in Meta’s bid to shut down the lawsuit. On Friday, they decided that they were wrong to take up the case in the first place.
The justices rejected a push from Republican-led states and industry groups to block the Environmental Protection Agency rule, marking the third time this month the conservative majority has left an environmental regulation in place for now.
The legislation by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) is one of the most ambitious proposals to remake a high court that has suffered a sharp decline in its public approval after a string of contentious decisions and ethics scandals in recent years.
The city of Indianapolis says it has no plans to change the way it deals with homeless residents, despite a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that allows cities to move, ticket or arrest people sleeping on the streets.
The White House on Monday detailed the contours of Biden’s court proposal, one that appears to have little chance of being approved by a closely divided Congress with just 99 days to go before Election Day.
The Supreme Court opened the door Monday to new, broad challenges to regulations long after they take effect.
In a historic 6-3 ruling, the justices said for the first time that former presidents have absolute immunity from prosecution for their official acts and no immunity for unofficial acts.
In a 6-3 decision, the high court reversed a ruling by a San Francisco-based appeals court that found outdoor sleeping bans amount to cruel and unusual punishment.
The decision also could affect other major bankruptcies, including the $2.4 billion bankruptcy plan for the Boy Scouts of America that has been approved by a federal judge, lawyers said.
Three energy-producing states—Ohio, Indiana and West Virginia—challenged the rule, along with the steel industry and other groups, calling it costly and ineffective.
The settlement would have shielded members of the Sackler family from civil lawsuits over the toll of opioids while providing billions of dollars to combat the opioid epidemic.
