"The effect of the court's aggressive protection of gun rights will be tragically seen in the ever-increasing toll of those who die."

This is part of Opinionpalooza, Slate’s coverage of the major decisions from the Supreme Court. Keep up with all of our Supreme Court coverage and analysis by signing up for weekly email roundups. The best way to support our work—and unlock exclusive legal analysis—is by joining Slate Plus.

Sometimes, these days, it feels like the Supreme Court is running the country. The nine justices are being repeatedly called upon to adjudicate the most charged disputes that spring from the fault lines of a nation split into ideological halves and that other malfunctioning institutions have failed to decisively solve.

In the term that just ended, the Supreme Court demonstrated that it takes its bearings more from the original understanding of the Constitution than from Trump.

The U.S. Supreme Court has wrapped up its term and begun to agree to cases it will hear in its next one, to begin in the fall.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments Dec. 8 in Trump v. Slaughter, a rather innocuous case that has the potential to reshape the landscape of our government’s separation of powers. While this case is important, so too is the manner in which the news ...

Readers offer their perspectives on the just-completed Supreme Court term. Also: How visiting World Cup fans see America.

The Supreme Court's 2025-26 term has been punctuated with some high-stakes cases: birthright citizenship, voting rights, presidential powers and consequential civil rights cases. Some of the most anticipated and significant cases have yet to be decided.

The Supreme Court has finished its session for the year. It continues to bow to the president and transfer power to the Oval Office.

The Supreme Court is destroying originalism in order to save it. In Trump v. Cook, Chief Justice John Roberts, a supposed originalist, bypassed the theory in favor of a five-year-old doctrine known as “history and tradition.