Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court has ruled against the bulk of President Trump's tariffs, invalidating most of the import duties imposed under his trade agenda. The decision marks a major legal setback for the administration's economic policy and is set to reshape US trade relations, with reactions pouring in from lawmakers, businesses and trading partners worldwide.

Donald Trump is citing the Supreme Court's sweeping presidential immunity decision to justify an expansive use of executive power, according to ABC News reporting. The ruling, handed down by the nation's highest court, shielded official presidential acts from prosecution, and Trump is now wielding it widely as he consolidates authority and pursues his agenda.

The US Supreme Court has cleared the way for states to use the federal SAVE database to verify the citizenship status of voters, in a decision reported by CyberScoop. The ruling lets states tap the immigration-status system as part of voter roll checks, a move likely to intensify debate over election integrity measures and the treatment of eligible citizens during verification.

The South Carolina Supreme Court has overturned the murder convictions of Alex Murdaugh, the disbarred lawyer previously found guilty of killing his wife Maggie and son Paul in 2021. The ruling throws out the 2023 verdicts, and attention now turns to whether prosecutors will retry him in the double-murder case.

US news outlets are examining how recent Supreme Court decisions may influence the upcoming midterm elections. Coverage from stations including KCRA and KOCO focuses on the potential electoral consequences of the rulings, particularly how they could mobilize voters and shape campaign messaging for both parties heading into the vote.

The US Supreme Court has issued a unanimous 9-0 decision that commentators say carries major nationwide and constitutional implications. The ruling's specifics are not detailed in available reporting, but the unanimity itself is being highlighted as significant, since a fully unified Court often signals broad agreement on questions of law with effects reaching well beyond the individual case.

The Supreme Court of India heard arguments over the appointment and perceived independence of the Election Commission, with the bench observing that the Commission must not only be independent but also appear so to the public. The hearing, widely covered by Indian media, has reignited debate over electoral reforms and who should choose election commissioners.

The Supreme Court has allowed the Department of Homeland Security to proceed with an overhaul of its immigration database ahead of the midterm elections, over the dissents of the Court's liberal justices. The ruling clears the way for DHS to implement changes to the system during the election period, a move the dissenting justices opposed but whose specific practical effects have not yet been detailed in coverage.

The Supreme Court has rejected a Trump-backed Missouri congressional map for the third time. The repeated rejections mean the contested district boundaries drawn with the former president's support will not take effect as drafted, leaving Missouri's congressional representation governed by existing lines while Republicans consider how to respond to the court's stance.

The US Supreme Court has issued a ruling that was released on a Friday night, an unusual timing that immediately drew heavy attention and reaction online. The content and implications of the decision were not specified in the initial reports, and legal observers were quick to weigh in on what the late-week release could signal about the case.

Utah officials say they will not use former president Donald Trump's voter-fraud database to purge the state's voter registration lists, even after a Supreme Court ruling that opened the door to such removals. The decision, reported by The Salt Lake Tribune, positions Utah against efforts by allies of the president to challenge voter rolls nationally, and it is drawing attention in the ongoing debate over election integrity and voting rights.

A dispute over Missouri's congressional map has led the Supreme Court to issue a clarification of the Purcell principle, the doctrine limiting courts' ability to change election rules close to an election. Commentators say the episode also exposed flaws in the Court's shadow docket practice, where major decisions are made through brief, unsigned orders with limited reasoning and little public scrutiny.

The US Supreme Court has once again blocked the use of a Republican-favored congressional map in Missouri, rejecting the state's redrawn district boundaries. It is at least the second time the justices have intervened over the map. The ruling reignites debate over partisan gerrymandering and voting rights, with Republicans in Missouri pushing for districts that favor their party and critics welcoming the court's refusal to allow the map to stand.

South Korea's Supreme Court has upheld the demotion of a police officer, citing a confession the officer recorded in a personal sketchbook. The ruling confirms that the handwritten confession could be used to justify the disciplinary demotion. The decision settles the disciplinary case and offers guidance on how personal written records can factor into police misconduct proceedings.

The wedding of a son of Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes drew the STF's leadership to São Paulo, held under heavy police security. Outlets are covering the presence of high-ranking court figures at the private family event, and the story is circulating widely in Brazil.

A landmark climate lawsuit brought by the City of Boulder against major fossil fuel companies is heading to the United States Supreme Court. The case, which seeks to hold energy companies accountable for climate-related costs to the city, has drawn national attention as its outcome could shape whether similar local climate liability lawsuits can proceed across the country.

Attention is on Washington state's Supreme Court election, with Mary Ellen Stone and Tiffany Attrill featured in commentary explaining why the race matters. The argument is that state supreme court contests, though often overlooked, shape rulings on issues ranging from elections to civil rights. Observers are weighing what the outcome could mean for the court's direction and the state's legal landscape.

The Supreme Court has issued a ruling concerning the Department of Homeland Security's voter database, and officials in California have confirmed it will not affect the state's 2026 general election. The decision addresses how federal voter data is handled, but California's election administration will proceed unchanged, according to the Lassen County News.

The Montana Supreme Court has reversed its earlier position on a ballot initiative in Butte concerning a data center, according to local reporting. The ruling changes the legal path for the measure, which had been headed toward voters. Details of the court's reasoning and what the decision means for the initiative's placement on the ballot remain limited in initial coverage.

The Montana Supreme Court has refused to grant a new trial to a man from Kila convicted of a 2022 murder in Martin City, upholding the original conviction. The ruling closes off one avenue of appeal for the defendant, and the decision is drawing attention in northwest Montana as the case moves toward final resolution.

Jesse Wegman argues that judicial supremacy has gone too far, saying the Constitution should not be treated as the exclusive property of the nine Supreme Court justices. The argument comes in a new book, 'Supremacy: How Rule by the Court Replaced Government by the People,' which calls on Americans to reclaim ownership of their founding charter and question the Court's final say over its meaning.

A state Supreme Court race between candidates Larson and Angelis is drawing attention over questions of partisanship, with debate centering on whether the judicial candidates' perceived political leanings reflect reality or are a matter of perception suggested by opponents. The issue has become a key theme in the contest, highlighting ongoing concerns about politicization of judicial elections.