Supreme Court precedent supports Bankman-Fried’s standing to raise objections based on the rule of specialty.

For months, Harlan Crow and members of Congress have been engaged in a fight over whether the billionaire needs to divulge details about his gifts...

Explore the Supreme Court's decision regarding the interpretation of "article of manufacture" in patent law.

During his three decades on the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas has enjoyed steady access to a lifestyle most Americans can only imagine.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.

Six hours later, The Wall Street Journal editorial page posted an essay by Alito in which he used our questions to guess at the points in our unpublished story

"We cannot ignore the importance that the Constitution places on who creates a federal office." - Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas

The President therefore may not be prosecuted for exercising his core constitutional powers, and he is entitled, at a minimum, to a presumptive immunity

In this case, however, no court has thus far considered how to draw that distinction, in general or with respect to the conduct alleged in particular.

The case concerns the federal indictment of a former President of the United States for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.

A federal grand jury indicted former President Donald J. Trump on four counts for conduct that occurred during his Presidency following the 2020 election.

For reasons I explain below, I do not join Part III–C of the Court’s opinion. The remainder of the opinion is consistent with my view

To the extent that the majority’s new accountability paradigm allows Presidents to evade punishment for their criminal acts while in office

Here, I will highlight just two observations about the results that follow from this paradigm shift.

These foundational presuppositions are reflected in a procedural paradigm of rules and accountability that operates in the realm of criminal law

I write separately to explain, as succinctly as I can, the theoretical nuts and bolts of what, exactly, the majority has done today

Today’s decision to grant former Presidents immunity for their official acts is deeply wrong.

If the former President cannot be held criminally liable for his official acts, those acts should still be admissible to prove knowledge or intent

the majority recognizes absolute immunity for “conduct within [the President’s] exclusive sphere of constitutional authority.”

Ultimately, the majority pays lip service to the idea that “[t]he President, charged with enforcing federal criminal laws, is not above them,”