The justices rejected some of President Trump’s signature initiatives, but delivered lasting, long-sought conservative wins.

Our chief legal affairs correspondent, Adam Liptak, explains how two Supreme Court rulings on the firings of independent regulators first expand the power of the president, and then carve out an exception.

The court’s decision involving laws from West Virginia and Idaho has implications for 25 other states with similar restrictions on transgender female athletes joining women’s sports teams.

A federal judge temporarily blocked a new rule that restricted reporters’ access to the Pentagon, in a lawsuit brought by The New York Times.

The justices blocked President Trump’s executive order that banned birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants and some temporary foreign visitors.

The decision ends one of the most aggressive parts of Trump’s immigration agenda. But hundreds of other restrictions have taken effect.

A federal judge says that the administration’s attempts to block money for the $16 billion rail project were “flagrantly” illegal.

President Trump promised to “take appropriate action immediately” against Lisa Cook, the Fed governor he had tried to fire, even as the court affirmed that Fed officials can be fired only for cause.

In twin rulings, the Supreme Court affirmed the Fed’s independence and said its leaders could not be fired at will, but said President Trump could fire other independent regulators for any reason.

The justices had been asked to examine the legality of the state’s grace period for late-arriving mail-in ballots.

President Trump had asked the justices to intervene after a jury found that he had sexually abused and defamed the writer E. Jean Carroll.

The justices will decide this week whether President Trump can end the guarantee of birthright citizenship and fire a leader of the independent Federal Reserve.

The product of journalism enjoys substantial protection under the First Amendment. But what about the process?

“This is a victory 10 years in the making,” a White House official said after the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump administration could end deportation protections for some migrants.

The split mirrored one that has long divided Americans: how seriously to take the president’s loose, provocative and sometimes ugly remarks.

The decision renders 1.3 million people from more than a dozen countries, many who have lived in the United States for decades, vulnerable to deportation.

The court handed President Trump victories in his push to rescind deportation protections for hundreds of thousands of people and turn away migrants at the southern border.

A policy of turning back asylum seekers at the border was rescinded in 2021, but the Trump administration wants the flexibility to reinstate it as a tool for border control.

An unlikely trio of justices issued a slashing critique of plea bargains that included several references to orangutans.

The penalties, issued in an attack where a police officer was shot, dwarfed those given to Jan. 6 rioters and appeared to signal that at least some courts will deal aggressively with ICE protesters.

Damon Landor, a Rastafarian, tried to sue Louisiana prison officials for violating his religious rights.

The court’s decision could have broader implications for whether companies can be held liable for aiding in international human rights abuses.

Plus, where did all the cottage cheese go?

Over the next two weeks, the justices will release more than a dozen final opinions, including high-profile decisions on birthright citizenship, the Federal Reserve and transgender athletes.

A federal judge ruled that the Agriculture Department lacked the authority to approve state waivers that restrict what SNAP participants can buy with their benefits.

A federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s providing federal data to states to check and purge their voter rolls violated several laws prohibiting the disclosure.

Pedro Hernandez was convicted in 2017 of kidnapping and murdering the 6-year-old boy, but an appeals court in July had said Mr. Hernandez was entitled to a new trial.

As the Trump administration seeks to move forward with renovations at the center, a judge has asked for its programming calendar.

The ruling accused the Trump administration of engaging in censorship by taking down materials at parks across the country.

The response came after a federal judge rebuked officials for failing to immediately comply with the order he issued last week.