What recent seemingly procedural SCOTUS decisions can tell us about substance.

Lambda Legal’s Sharon McGowan on their setback at SCOTUS.

Yale’s Asha Rangappa takes us inside “the spy stuff.”

How will the chief justice reconcile his conservatism with his institutionalism in a divided court?

A conversation with screenwriter Daniel Stiepelman on the biopic On the Basis of Sex, about his aunt, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

Mimi Rocah draws a legal map of the Special Counsel’s investigation, dotted with “buckets of criminality”, plus inside the arguments about whether half of Oklahoma is an Indian Reservation.

The White House settled CNN’s suit, but big questions remain.

Is Trump’s appointment of Matthew Whitaker even legal? And why the census citizenship question is so problematic.

Reading tea leaves on the cases before the court this term and spilling the tea on where voting rights stand for the midterms.

As Justice Kavanaugh takes his seat, Dahlia Lithwick takes stock with Senator Jeff Merkley and Matthew Yglesias.

A legal all-star panel on Kavanaugh, the coming SCOTUS term, and the future of the court.

Law Professors Lisa Sun and RonNell Andersen Jones on morphing the media into enemies of the people.

SPECIAL: Surviving a School Shooting, From a Teacher's Point of View

Trump’s nominee is not super into precedent, it seems.

From armbands to Parkland, free speech rights inside the school gates.

The intellectual property battle about much more than plastic dolls.

Rick Hasen on his book “The Justice of Contradictions: Antonin Scalia and the Politics of Disruption”

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse on the frustrating process of vetting a new Supreme Court justice.

Our annual look at the end of the Supreme Court term.

Analysis of SCOTUS gerrymandering and voter purge decisions with Paul M Smith, who argued two of the cases.

A legal all-star panel with David Cole, Vanita Gupta, Joyce White Vance and Richard Painter.

Examining the narrow slicing of the Masterpiece cake shop holding, and contemplating the role of faith in our laws.

It’s a possibility, but should it be a goal?

Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey on gun safety wins, the resistance, and Eric Schneiderman

A slow motion constitutional crisis may be upon us. Dahlia Lithwick is joined by Lawfare blog editor and senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, Ben Wittes, to assess the threats to the rule of law posed by presidential pique.

NIFLA v Becerra may be all about reproductive rights, but it’s a speech case, too.

This week we follow the money in the Mueller investigation and we talk with a former White House counsel under President Barack Obama about the relationship between presidents and their lawyers, and between this president and his lawyers.

As the courts grapple with radical shifts in immigration policy, a look at the cases underlying the conversation about the rights of refugees, immigrants, Dreamers, and visitors.

The case of the capital defendant who insisted “I’m innocent” while his lawyer told everyone “he did it” reaches the Supreme Court.

SCOTUS will weigh whether Ohio had the right to purge more than a million voters who sat out elections.

What’s next, and what’s needed, in the wake of sexual harassment claims concerning the judiciary?

A preview of Slate's eight-episode miniseries about Watergate.

As is so often the case, all eyes are on Justice Anthony Kennedy.

Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern, and Pam Karlan chew over the Supreme Court term just completed.

What counts as “obstruction of justice?” And, should judges pay any attention to Trump’s Twitter feed?

The most conservative justice casts a decisive vote to invalidate race-based voting lines.

A group of law professors tells a federal court that religious bias lies at the heart of Trump’s travel ban.

In the context of a capital trial, is there any such thing?

An important church-state case at the Supreme Court centers on tire scraps repurposed for kids’ play areas.

Did eight men spend decades in prison for somebody else’s crime? And – a history of confirmation hearings.

Were his hearings as pointless as they seemed?

It’s not that he’s a bad judge, or that he was nominated by a president so compromised by scandal. Plus – a veteran D.C. journalist tries his hand at fiction.

After spending years challenging a draconian voter ID law in Texas, the DOJ abruptly changes course. Plus – a thorny deportation case is argued at SCOTUS.

How state attorneys general are going on the offensive against the most egregious parts of the Trump agenda. And – the Constitution’s limits on the U.S.-Mexico border.

A deep dive into the Ninth Circuit’s ruling on President Trump’s immigration ban.

Is Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch really “Scalia 2.0”? And, the constitutional and human costs of Trump’s Muslim ban.

Can government officials be held individually responsible for constitutional violations on their watch? And, why one NFL team is so interested in a trademark challenge brought by a group of Asian-American rockers.

Trump winnows his shortlist for the Supreme Court’s empty seat. And we preview a big special education case that will be argued next week.

Why the Founders were so adamant about preventing the kind of presidency we’re about to witness. Plus, historians, philosophers, and legal scholars reflect on the climate for free speech on campus.

The Supreme Court takes up the thorny issue of racial gerrymandering. And, a revolt is underway in the Electoral College.

A timely look back at the infamous Supreme Court case that upheld the internment of Japanese-Americans.

If we take the president-elect at his word, how afraid should we be?

Lawyers challenging punitive voting restrictions in Ohio make an 11th hour appeal to the Supreme Court. And – Trump asks his supporters to go to other people’s polls.

Merrick Garland has been waiting seven months for a Senate hearing, but the president’s advisers say Obama has no regrets about the nomination. Plus – the difficulty of keeping racism out of the jury room.

Reflections on the thin gruel of a docket crafted in large part to avoid 4-4 ties. Plus – a conversation with the latest judge to be personally insulted by Donald Trump.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg biographer Irin Carmon joins Dahlia to reflect on how the diminutive Supreme Court justice came to loom so large in the consciousness of young feminists. Dahlia also speaks with the proud owner of an RBG tattoo.

The Supreme Court caps off one of its twistiest-turniest terms ever with a strong defense of abortion rights. Dahlia speaks with the woman behind Whole Woman’s Health v Hellerstedt. And she recaps the term’s highlights with Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern.

On his last day in office, U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli tells Dahlia what it’s been like to argue the government’s most consequential cases at the high court. Also – why Justice Anthony Kennedy cast a clutch vote for affirmative action.

Dahlia sits down with Stanford Law School’s Deborah Rhode to discuss Donald Trump’s attack on the judge in the Trump University fraud lawsuits. And she talks with legal scholar Jeffrey Rosen about the astonishing legal mind of Justice Louis Brandeis.

Is the eight-member Supreme Court a diminvished body? Dahlia mulls that question with fellow court watchers Garrett Epps and Jonathan Adler. And they consider what we should make of Donald Trump’s recently released Supreme Court nomination shortlist.

Dahlia and the National Law Journal’s Tony Mauro listen to highlights from the Supreme Court’s 2015 term. And she speaks with Politico’s Josh Gerstein about the recent non-developments in the non-confirmation of SCOTUS nominee Merrick Garland.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in McDonnell v. U.S., the former Virginia governor’s appeal of his 2014 corruption conviction. On this episode, former federal judge Nancy Gertner tells Dahlia why she believes McDonnell should walk free.

Dahlia previews United States v. Texas – this week’s big immigration case – with Brianne Gorod of the Constitutional Accountability Center. She also hears from Sen. Al Franken about the latest in the standoff over Obama’s SCOTUS nominee, Merrick Garland.

More than two weeks into the standoff over Merrick Garland’s nomination to SCOTUS, GOP leaders show no sign of backing down. Legal scholar Geoffrey Stone tells Dahlia that this stonewalling is not only unprecedented, but unjustifiable as well.

This week, SCOTUS heard arguments in Zubik v Burwell, the latest challenge to Obamacare. In it, a group of religious nonprofits are challenging the govt.’s workaround for employers who don’t want anything to do with getting birth control to their workers.

It was a big week at SCOTUS, as a newly-balanced Court turned to Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, its first abortion case in nine years. We discuss the case with legal scholar Pamela Karlan and listen to some highlights from oral arguments.

A week after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, one of his former clerks shares fond memories of a mentor with whom she didn’t always agree politically. And a legal scholar explains why Scalia didn’t always remain true to his originalist principles.

The sudden death on Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia on Saturday has unleashed huge shockwaves in both the presidential race and the legal community.

On this episode, Dahlia asks why the Supreme Court has been almost absent as a campaign issue, despite the fact that the next president could have the opportunity to reshape the Court’s bench. She is joined by UC-Irvine law professor Erwin Chemerinsky.

In Heffernan v City of Paterson, the Supreme Court must decide whether a government worker can be punished for a political belief his employers attribute to him. This week, Dahlia speaks with lawyers on both sides of the topsy-turvy case.

This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case that could undercut the ability of public sector unions to raise money. Dahlia is joined by Cato Institute’s Ilya Shapiro and U. of Michigan’s Sam Bagenstos, who submitted briefs on opposite sides of the case.

Dahlia speaks with attorney Mary Kathryn Nagle about Dollar General Corporation v. Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians, a major Native American rights case argued at the Supreme Court earlier this month.

What is the meaning of “one person, one vote? That’s the main question in Evenwel v. Abbott, argued this week at SCOTUS. Dahlia speaks with experts on both sides of the case. And she plays a few highlights from the week’s big affirmative action case.

A half-century after Brown v. Board, should courts still be in the business of integrating public schools? Dahlia sits down with legal historian Risa Golubuff to discuss the backdrop to the term’s big affirmative action case, Fisher v Univ. of Texas.

Dahlia speaks with Carter Phillips, the lawyer who represented Tyson Foods at SCOTUS this week in its attempt to dismiss a class action suit by workers. She also considers the love-hate relationship between presidential hopefuls and the high court.

Dahlia previews Foster v. Chatman, a Supreme Court case that centers on the problem of racial bias in the process of jury selection.

In Montgomery v. Louisiana, the Supreme Court takes up the case of a man who has served 53 years in prison for a murder he committed as a juvenile.

As serious questions about lethal injection protocols continue to swirl, Dahlia speaks with The Marshall Project’s Andrew Cohen about where the Supreme Court currently stands on the constitutionality of the death penalty.

Dahlia sits down with the LA Times’ David Savage to consider three of the big cases on the SCOTUS docket this fall -- and whether liberals are right to be worried about the outcomes of those cases.

Dahlia sits down with Linda Hirshman, author of “Sisters in Law: How Sandra Day O'Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg Went to the Supreme Court and Changed the World.” Hirshman recounts the two women’s rise to the bench and reflects on the impact they’

To mark the 50th anniversary of the Voting Rights Act, Dahlia sits down with The Nation’s Ari Berman to discuss the decades-long campaign to roll back the achievements of the landmark 1965 legislation.

ahlia sits down with three fellow SCOTUS-watchers — Kenji Yoshino, Mark Joseph Stern, and Christian Turner — to reflect on the just-completed term and how it will go down in history.

Over two consecutive days, the Supreme Court handed down historic decisions on same-sex marriage and Obamacare. Dahlia Lithwick and Walter Dellinger react.

Dahlia is joined by The Atlantic’s Garrett Epps to parse the latest batch of 5-4 decisions from SCOTUS. They included rulings on immigration, free speech, and the death penalty, and involved some strange alliances among the Justices.

This week, Dahlia speaks with a former clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas about the strong stances that Thomas has been taking recently. And she asks what’s at stake in a big challenge to “One Person One Vote” that SCOTUS will take up next term.