
Republicans Don’t Know What to Do With Their Bad-Faith ACA Case
The Court may well invalidate the law, but not without taking a considerable risk.

A special project on the constitutional debates in American life, in partnership with the National Constitution Center
This work was commissioned, produced, and edited by The Atlantic's editorial staff. Support for this work was provided in part by the organizations listed here.
Support for this project was provided by the Madison Initiative of the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

The Court may well invalidate the law, but not without taking a considerable risk.

An overlooked corner of the Constitution hints at a right to be protected from infection.

The Bush v. Gore fight has become the template of a disputed election, but many of the worst-case scenarios could end up before Congress, not the Court.

The United States is the only country that allows this practice, and soon the Supreme Court could get rid of it.

The multiday spectacle gave viewers little understanding of the most important issue the Court will rule on: how Americans vote and whether those votes matter.

And the Department of Justice’s lawsuit against her is a disgrace.

Pay attention to phrases such as settled law and stare decisis, and a whole other layer of meaning will come to the fore.

Those tasked with administering justice are overwhelmingly white and male, while the country is not.

The concept of precedent isn’t valuable just for the guidance it provides but also for the confidence it instills in political and legal systems. Republicans are treating it recklessly.

Seven months into the pandemic, courts around the country are beginning to restart their criminal dockets. But the practical obstacles are staggering.