
The Justices Are Telling Us What They Think About Roe v. Wade
A majority on the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down the landmark decision—but they’re not prepared for the ensuing havoc.

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.

A majority on the Supreme Court appears ready to strike down the landmark decision—but they’re not prepared for the ensuing havoc.

Two recent decisions capture perfectly just how distorted the Court’s approach is.

The conservative majority’s opinion has declared that voter fraud, not racial discrimination, is a threat to the American system of representation.

Prosecutors aren’t charging suspects with hate crimes, even in clear-cut cases.

The law’s opponents have a good chance of winning their next showdown, though it won’t threaten the law as a whole.

John Marshall not only owned people; he owned many of them, and aggressively bought them when he could.

When courts consider the prospect of excluding noncitizens from representation, they should bear in mind the country’s past.

The theory has not provided the clarity some of its early proponents had hoped it would.

Anti-abortion-rights activists have turned their arguments away from protecting democracy and toward maximizing protection for fetal life.

America is inching closer to a possibility it has never seen before: the indictment and trial of a former president.