When forces unite with no care for the Constitution, the rule of law or anything you learned in civics class, you can end up with the entrenched overreach of the Plenary Power Doctrine.

In 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court made a decision to return more than 3 million acres of land in Oklahoma to the Muscogee (Creek) Nation. The case, McGirt v. Oklahoma, has been described as one of the most significant Native American-related rulings in 100 years.The returned acreage in Oklahoma, including part of the city of Tulsa, is now recognized as “Indian Country,” as defined by federal law.

The president's contention that birthright citizenship is unconstitutional is considered a fringe view because the Supreme Court ruled to the contrary 127 years ago.

The Law Library of Congress and the Supreme Court Fellows Program will present a conversation with Associate Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson on Thursday, Febru...

"Sex and Privacy in American Law presents empirical analyses of civil and criminal state court decisions applying the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark decision in Lawrence v. Texas. After tracing key historical and legal developments leading up to the Lawrence decision's decriminalization of sodomy on substantive due process grounds in 2003, the study employs both quantitative and qualitative content analyses of 307 cases citing Lawrence over the two decades since it was decided. Results indicate that judicial decisions rarely embraced broad readings of Lawrence in criminal cases. In fact, Lawrence's long-term impact on criminal law has largely remained as limited as some commentators predicted shortly after the case was decided. In civil cases, courts tended not to rely on Lawrence significantly in most business and employment law cases. Courts that applied Lawrence in family law disputes - especially those involving same-sex couples - often construed the case narrowly at first, but broadened their interpretations after Obergefell v. Hodges brought marriage equality to the United States. Lawrence also impacted LGBTQ+ civil rights claims. Statistically significant geographic differences were found relating to how courts used Lawrence in those cases, with judges in Northeastern and Pacific coastal states having applied the precedent broadly, while judges in Southern and Midwestern states tending to have applied the case more narrowly. The implications are explored generally and within the specific context of the constriction of substantive due process rights in the wake Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization."--

"Collins views American society as being trapped in the so-called prisoner's dilemma. According to this classic piece of game theory, two prisoners whose interests would normally be aligned are put in a situation that compels them to betray their solidarity with each other. As Collins tells it, all of us are prisoners, and if we banded together we could create policies that would lead to a better, happier world. But those leading the Anti-Civil Rights Movement, such as Edward Blum, have repeatedly found ways to split coalitions-to pit marginalized groups against each others-whenever those coalitions have threatened the power of conservative elites to set the political and legal agenda. One of the central tools in the conservative arsenal has been affirmative action, which has had a long history of dividing the Asian American and Black American communities, going back to the anti-busing sentiment among Chinese Americans in San Francisco in the early 1970s. In 2013, the same year he helped gut the Voting Rights Act in the Shelby County v. Holder case, Blum created the Students for Fair Admissions and brought a suit against Harvard University for discriminating against Asian Americans-the latest in a long string of prisoner dilemmas designed to undermine social progress. Collins's groundbreaking work is a field guide to the personalities, funding, and dilemmas that characterize the war between the Civil Rights Movement and the Anti-Civil Rights Movement-between the forces represented, respectively, by Thurgood Marshall and the one who replaced him on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas. Reading this book helps readers better understand the battles that have been fought in the past, but also where the next fight might take place, and what might be necessary in order to win"--

"The president's power to pardon federal crimes is immense, with roots in ancient notions of mercy and amnesty. However, this power, seemingly boundless under the Constitution, lacks clear constraints, inviting concerns about abuse. Recent discussions in the U.S. Supreme Court have raised alarms about the potential for presidential abuse of pardons, highlighting the need for accountability within the pardon system to uphold the foundational premise that no one is above the law."--

"In her work as an appellate judge, Justice Ginsburg translated this devotion into a jurisprudence focused on 'We the People,' substantively and procedurally. Substantively, Justice Ginsburg insisted that faithfully employed, the words of the Constitution supported an expansive understanding of who was included in 'We the People,' despite the framers' narrow understanding of the phrase when it appeared in the preamble to the Constitution. Expressed also as a jurisprudence of equality and opportunity, Justice Ginsburg believed that the phrase promised equal dignity for people despite their gender, gender identity, race, or disability. Procedurally, 'We the People' shaped Justice Ginsburg's approach to the process of deciding cases, guiding every step of her judicial process-the way she read the Constitution and statutes, approached voting issues, and analyzed the demands of the separation of powers, for example. While the substantive contours of 'We the People' have received the most attention, the full sweep of her jurisprudence appears also in the process she used in analyzing all issues. Justice Ginsburg's jurisprudence of 'We the People' became the ordering principle of this book, explaining both the book's title and its topics. Instead of a general survey of Justice Ginsburg's work, the book tells the story of an advocate and a jurist committed to increasing in material ways the bundle of rights we all carry around with us as Americans. As Linda Greenhouse explained in the Foreword, the story begins with Justice Ginsburg's commitment to an America that enables people with diverse experiences to live together in civic harmony. Justice Ginsburg believed that because the American experience involved living in community, the religious expression of some of us had to yield when the expression oppressed others of us in ways endangering that harmony"--

The Republicans take issue with ABA's Standard 206, which they say requires law schools to emphasize race-based admissions and hiring processes.

"Ketanji Brown Jackson, the first Black woman ever appointed to the Supreme Court of the United States, chronicles her life story and her extraordinary path to becoming a jurist on America's highest court, in her inspiring, intimate memoir. In this unflinching account, Justice Jackson invites readers into her life and world, tracing her family's ascent from segregation to her confirmation as a Supreme Court Justice, within the span of one generation. Named 'Ketanji Onyika,' meaning 'Lovely One,' based on a suggestion from her aunt, a Peace Corps worker stationed in West Africa, Justice Jackson learned from her educator parents to take pride in her heritage. She describes her resolve as a young girl to honor this legacy and realize her dreams: from hearing stories of her grandparents and parents breaking barriers in the segregated South, to honing her voice in high school as an oratory champion and student body president, to graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, where she performed in musical theater and improv and participated in pivotal student organizations. Here, Justice Jackson pulls back the curtain, marrying the public record of her life with what is less known. She reveals what it takes to advance in the legal profession when most people in power don't look like you, and to reconcile a demanding career with the joys and sacrifices of marriage and motherhood. Through trials and triumphs, Justice Jackson's journey will resonate with dreamers everywhere, especially those who nourish outsized ambitions and refuse to be turned aside. This moving, openhearted tale will spread hope for a more just world, for generations to come"--

"A blistering expose of Clarence Thomas and the conservative regime of corruption that has usurped the Supreme Court -- by a Democratic activist and former Republican political operative. Public confidence in the Supreme Court has plummeted to new lows in the last few years -- and for good reason. In the past three decades, six conservative justices have gained a supermajority through questionable means: a dubious intervention in a presidential election, perjury during Senate testimony, and a GOP Senate Leader's unethical blockade of a Supreme Court nomination. Behind this strategic dismantling of our Supreme Court is a vast, well-funded political machine--backed by the extreme right-wing Federalist Society, the notoriously secretive Catholic organization Opus Dei, and GOP megadonors operating from behind closed doors. Armed with an insider's perspective from his time within the conservative movement, David Brock reveals how the efforts to stack the court in service of extreme right-wing interests stem from a decades-long strategy to weaponize our judicial system into an extension of the Republican party itself. Stench investigates the ethics scandals that surround Clarence Thomas and his wife, the rightwing activist Ginni Thomas, culling new material from Thomas' accusers, along with original reporting and Brock's first-hand knowledge of the inner workings of the GOP. Stench is a staggering expose, one that only Brock could write--exhaustive in its research and revelatory in its access to the world of what has effectively become the Thomas Court"--

Eliminating the terms “race and ethnicity” from the American Bar Association’s law school accreditation rules will hobble longstanding efforts to bring in diverse students and faculty, critics warned in public comments on the proposal.

The politics of domination with which the United States oppresses and exploits the Native Nations, is a violation of the intentions of the framers of the Constitution, and the meaning of the text itself. The arguments of the advocates of the genocide of the 1830s and their appeasers have come to determine the law, policy, and conduct of the United States, while the arguments of the opponents of what came to be known as the Trail of Tears have largely been forgotten, at least among non-Native people. By recovering these arguments, and allowing readers to explore large questions of law, justice, genocide, and politics in a context closely tethered to empirical evidence and careful argument, this book should facilitate more widespread understanding of the Native Nations' rights to their treaty-guaranteed dominion over their own lands and perhaps help open communication between the American people and the peoples of the Native Nations; communication on which the emergence of what Martin Luther King, Jr. called 'the beloved community' depends. Arguments over Genocide aims to reach a broad audience of college students, in courses on American History, Indigenous Studies, and the United States and the World, as well as in more specialized upper division courses on constitutional law, American/European imperialism, and resistance, independence, and decolonization movements. Individuals interested in the founding of the United States, in the Trail of Tears, and in 19th century American history should find the work compelling, as should legal practitioners in the field

Independent News and Analysis on the U.S. Supreme Court

Gun ownership can be prevented not only for convicted "abusers" but also those found to pose a "credible threat."

The Moving Image and Sound Branch of the National Archives doesn’t just hold motion pictures.  It’s also home to over 300,000 sound recordings, including those from the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court began recording its proceedings in 1955, but the court’s opinions were not recorded until the 1980s.  The recordings are organized chronologically.  Since cases are often argued over multiple days, cases can be split up between different recordings. Some newly digitized landmark cases include: Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015 required states to Read More

"Not White Enough is a legal and political history of anti-Asian bigotry, beginning with the California Gold Rush and ending with the infamous Supreme Court decision that upheld the imprisonment without trial of more than 100,000 innocent Americans on the spurious grounds of national security. The book demonstrates how law and politics bled into each other for decades to enable two-tiered justice, brushing aside Constitutional guarantees of equality under law. Not White Enough examines each of the key Supreme Court decisions-Wong Kim Ark, Ozawa, and Thind, for example-as expressions of political will and not simply jurisprudence. The author chronicles the political history of racism that made Japanese internment almost inevitable, including the key role San Francisco mayors James D. Phelan and Eugene Schmitz, political boss Abe Ruef, and California attorney general Ulysses Webb played in instigating, for political convenience, some of the most egregious anti-Asian legislation"--

"In Supreme Bias, Christina L. Boyd, Paul M. Collins, Jr., and Lori A. Ringhand, present for the first time a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics of race and gender at the Supreme Court confirmation hearings held before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Drawing on their deep knowledge of the confirmation hearings, as well as rich new qualitative and quantitative evidence, the authors highlight how the women and people of color who have sat before the Committee have faced a significantly different confirmation process than their white, male colleagues. Despite being among the most qualified and well-credentialed lawyers of their respective generations, female nominees and nominees of color face more skepticism of their professional competence, are subjected to stereotype-based questioning, and are more frequently interrupted and described in less positive terms by senators. In addition to revealing the disturbing extent to which race and gender bias exists even at the highest echelon of U.S. legal power, this book also provides concrete suggestions for how that bias can be reduced in the future"--

"This edited volume brings together expert legal scholars to identify and critique jurisprudential themes running through Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's opinions during her tenure as a jurist, including opinions relating to gender equality, voting rights, copyright law, civil and criminal procedure, immigration law, environmental law, bankruptcy, and more"--

With unparalleled access to key players, a CNN senior legal analyst and Supreme Court expert provides an urgent and inside look at the history-making era of the Supreme Court during the Trump and post-Trump years, including its reversal of Roe v. Wade.;"Nine Black Robes displays the inner maneuverings among the Supreme Court justices that led to the seismic reversal of Roe v. Wade and a half century of women's abortion rights. Biskupic details how rights are stripped away or, alternatively as in the case of gun owners, how rights are expanded. Today's bench--with its conservative majority--is desperately ideological. The Court has been headed rightward and ensnared by its own intrigues for years, but the Trump appointments hastened the modern transformation. With unparalleled access to key players, Biskupic shows the tactics of each justice and reveals switched votes and internal pacts that typically never make the light of day, yet will have repercussions for generations to come"--

Barbara Atwood, a professor emerita of law and an expert on the act, discusses the history of the law and the arguments in the case.

Colleges across the country will be forced to stop considering race in admissions under Thursday’s Supreme Court ruling, ending affirmative action policies that date back decades.

This article was updated on June 29 at 4:09 p.m.In a historic decision, the Supreme Court severely limited, if not effectively ended, the use of affirmative action in college admissions on Thursday.

The Supreme Court killed affirmative action, but not for military academies or the legacy admissions that protect the ruling class.

By a narrow margin, the Supreme Court has ruled against the Navajo Nation in a case over water rights in the drought-stricken US Southwest.

"Every Supreme Court transition presents an opportunity for a shift in the balance of the third branch of American government, but the replacement of Thurgood Marshall with Clarence Thomas in 1991 proved particularly momentous. Not only did it shift the ideological balance on the Court; it was inextricably entangled with the persistent American dilemma of race. In The Transition, this most significant transition from 1953 to the present is explored through the lives and writings of the first two African American justices on Court, touching on the lasting consequences for understandings of American citizenship as well as the central currents of Black political thought over the past century. In their lives, Thurgood Marshall and Clarence Thomas experienced the challenge of living and learning in a world that had enslaved their relatives and that continued to subjugate members of their racial group. On the Court, their judicial writings--often in concurrences or dissents--richly illustrate the ways in which these two individuals embodied these crucial American (and African American) debates--on the balance between state and federal authority, on the government's responsibility to protect its citizens against discrimination, and on the best strategies for pursuing equality. The gap between Justices Marshall and Thomas on these questions cannot be overstated, and it reveals an extraordinary range of thought that has yet to be fully appreciated. The 1991 transition from Justice Marshall to Justice Thomas has had consequences that are still unfolding at the Court and in society. Arguing that the importance of this transition has been obscured by the relegation of these Justices to the sidelines of Supreme Court history, Daniel Kiel shows that it is their unique perspective as Black justices--the lives they have lived as African Americans and the rooting of their judicial philosophies in the relationship of government to African Americans--that makes this succession echo across generations"--

Fearless, adversarial journalism that holds the powerful accountable.

"By re-writing US Supreme Court opinions that implicate critical dimensions of racial justice, Critical Race Judgments demonstrates that it's possible to be judge and a critical race theorist. Specific issues covered in these cases include the death penalty, employment, voting, policing, education, the environment, justice, housing, immigration, sexual orientation, segregation, and mass incarceration. While some rewritten cases {u2013} Plessy v. Ferguson (which constitutionalized Jim Crow) and Korematsu v. United States (which constitutionalized internment) {u2013} originally focused on race, many of the rewritten opinions {u2013} Lawrence v. Texas (which constitutionalized sodomy laws) and Roe v. Wade (which constitutionalized a woman's right to choose) {u2013} are used to incorporate racial justice principles in novel and important ways. This work is essential for everyone who needs to understand why critical race theory must be deployed in constitutional law to uphold and advance racial justice principles that are foundational to US democracy."-- from publisher's website.

The Term is a podcast from Law360 for the busy U.S. Supreme Court watcher. Give us about 15 minutes each week and we'll catch you up on all the big action at the nation's highest court, along with a list of what to watch in the coming sessions. Hosts senior Supreme Court reporter Jimmy Hoover in Washington, D.C. and editor-at-large Natalie Rodriguez in New York City cut through a busy docket to focus on the key cases and developments everyone will be talking about.