Whatever your view on the legal merits of yesterday’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling that the discovery of gene sequences is not patentable, the verdict is one more challenge to an industry that’s already on the ropes.

Of course, back then, Democrats ardently opposed the nuclear option as Republicans supported it. And no doubt the positions, the arguments, the rhetoric, will be precisely reversed this summer.

For well over two centuries, the United States Constitution has served as a charter for a free, democratic government and for a country that has risen from a dicey political experiment to an economic and political superpower. In the history of the world, there is nothing like it.

Please join top legal scholars for a discussion of the ramifications of two landmark cases (Carolene Products v. United States and Erie Railroad v. Tompkins) on its 75th anniversary.

The Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last week to dismiss a lawsuit alleging human rights violations by Royal Dutch Shell in Nigeria is already being portrayed as a victory for big corporations over human rights victims.

There’s a story Americans have learned about the Supreme Court, a story that affects the way we view high-profile cases like the ones about same-sex marriage that it heard last week.

The lawyers have spoken; it is now the Court’s turn. What is it likely to say when the decision is finally announced?  The oral argument did shed some light on the likely answer – although reading judicial tea leaves is always hazardous.

Nearly four years ago, in an important case from Texas, the justices on the Supreme Court signaled that Sections (4b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act were in grave need of modernization.

I can only hope that the scourge of racism is finally purged from Stewartstown and Pinkham's Grant.

The three-judge panel ruling of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals on recess appointments in Canning v. NLRB was stunning.