Both cases found the justices split on whether to separate the president from the presidency.

Overturning the law on First Amendment grounds would require courts to make policy judgments that should be left to the political branches.

The majority opinion in Trump v. United States badly misstates principles of separation of powers to immunize hypothetical future presidents—in service of immunity for Trump himself.

Missing in much commentary about Trump v. United States is what it means for the expansion of immunities for presidents while in office.

Neither the Rome Statute nor fundamental fairness evidently permitted the ICC prosecutor to instruct an external panel of legal experts he assembled to review evidence he used to support his applications...

Two reasons for cautious optimism—or at least cautious suspension of outright horror

Neither case reached the merits. But NetChoice and Murthy have set the paradigm through which the Court will evaluate social media regulations and will change the way governments try to influence social ...

Though the opinion is likely not the final word on the Texas and Florida laws, it’s an important statement that the Court will not set different rules for online and offline speech.