supreme-court

Chief Justice leaves his friendly confines for Trump impeachment trial
Will anyone in the Senate know his favorite dessert?

President Donald Trump greets Chief Justice John Roberts after addressing a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber in February 2017. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)

Charles E. Grassley was one of the first senators to suggest Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. might be uncomfortable presiding over the Senate’s impeachment trial of President Donald Trump — in part because it will be televised.

The Iowa Republican, who will swear in Roberts for his role Thursday, has long been an advocate for adding cameras to the Supreme Court. But Roberts and the other justices haven’t budged. They still conduct oral arguments and announce opinions in a courtroom without cameras or cell phones.

Brett Kavanaugh brings pizza to the Supreme Court and it is not good
Just call him the ‘pizza justice.’ No really, he doesn’t mind

Supreme Court Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, possibly thinking about pizza. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

The crust is slightly burnt around the edges where the cheese bubbles. The pepperonis are large, oily and plentiful, so no complaints there.

Brett Kavanaugh has already left his mark on the Supreme Court, and it is pizza.

Roberts would hold the gavel, but not the power, at Trump impeachment trial
The chief justice is likely to punt contentious and political questions to lawmakers

Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. listens to President Donald Trump's State of the Union address to a joint session of Congress on Jan. 30, 2018. (Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call file photo)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will preside over any impeachment trial of President Donald Trump as the Constitution requires, but don’t expect him to make decisions that substantively reshape the action.

Although there is speculation about how active a role Roberts will take in an impeachment trial and whether key witnesses testify, the Senate under past rules has given relatively little authority to the nation’s top judicial figure. And in the areas Roberts might have authority to make rulings, such as questions about whether evidence is relevant, the rules also allow the Senate to call for a vote to overrule him anyway.

Lawmakers urge Supreme Court to reexamine abortion decisions
Mostly Republican group targets Roe v. Wade, Planned Parenthood v. Casey

More than 200 lawmakers, almost all of whom are Republican, want the Supreme Court to strike down landmark cases upholding abortion rights. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

Over 200 lawmakers, mostly Republicans, filed an amicus brief Thursday urging the Supreme Court to upend the precedents set by two landmark abortion rights cases, elevating abortion as a campaign issue ahead of this fall’s elections.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on March 4 in June Medical Services v. Gee, a case over a 2014 Louisiana law that requires physicians who offer abortions to have admitting privileges at a local hospital within 30 miles. Abortion rights advocates argue that the restrictions are burdensome and would cause most doctors to stop performing abortions.

Justices decide to wade into separation-of-powers showdown
The issue lands there just as the House prepares a floor vote on articles of impeachment

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Friday to weigh in on a separation-of-powers showdown between Congress and Trump over whether Congress can obtain his financial and tax records. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The Supreme Court on Friday stepped into the political and legal fight over whether Congress can obtain President Donald Trump’s financial and tax records.

The justices agreed to decide two cases in the first separation-of-powers showdown between Congress and Trump to reach the high court. The issue lands there just as the House prepares a floor vote on articles of impeachment.

House urges Supreme Court to enforce subpoenas for Trump’s financial records
Delay in subpoenas would be deprive Congress information it needs to secure elections, court filing says

People walk by the New York headquarters for Deutsche Bank in New York earlier this year. President Donald Trump is trying to keep Deutsche Bank and Capital One from acting on congressional subpoenas over his financial records. (Spencer Platt/Getty Images file photo)

The House cited 2020 election security concerns Wednesday when it urged the Supreme Court not to delay the enforcement of congressional subpoenas for financial records of President Donald Trump and his business from Deutsche Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation.

Any harm to Trump for allowing the enforcement of the House Financial Services and Intelligence committees would be less severe than Congress not getting information it needs to protect the elections from foreign influence, House attorneys argued in a Supreme Court filing.

Supreme Court seems hesitant to rule on defunct gun law
Case is first test of how far the justices might extend gun rights outside the home

Gun safety advocates arrive holding letters spelling “gun safety” in front of the Supreme Court before the start of oral arguments in the Second Amendment case NY State Rifle & Pistol v. City of New York, NY, on Monday. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call)

The Supreme Court heard the first oral argument about Second Amendment rights in almost a decade Monday, and most of the justices didn’t appear inclined to jump back into the contentious social debate over gun control laws.

The court has long avoided major cases that address the extent to which Congress or state lawmakers can pass laws that restrict firearms, since 5-4 rulings in 2008 and 2010 that found an individual right to possess a firearm at home for self-defense.

Consequential month ahead for court battles between House and Trump
Decisions expected in several cases that could determine limits of congressional power to investigate the president

The U.S. Supreme Court building at sunset on Nov. 14. (Bill Clark/CQ Roll Call file photo)

December will bring a blizzard of action in federal courts that could ultimately settle the limits of congressional power to investigate presidents and compel testimony — and could play a role in the ongoing political drama over impeachment.

In the next two weeks, the Supreme Court and others will handle litigation about congressional subpoenas for White House and national security officials and about lawmakers’ ability to get documents related to President Donald Trump’s finances.

Supreme Court stops House subpoena for Trump financial records
Case could reshape limits for impeachment and other investigations into a sitting president

President Donald Trump’s lawyers have until Dec. 5 to file an appeal to stop enforcement of the House Democrats’ subpoena. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call file photo)

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily stopped enforcement of a House committee subpoena, siding for now with President Donald Trump over Congress in a case that could reshape the limits for impeachment and other investigations into a sitting president.

A majority of the justices voted to grant Trump’s emergency request to put a hold on a lower court ruling that required accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a House Oversight and Reform Committee subpoena for eight years of Trump’s financial and tax records.

Trump’s fight against subpoenas reaches Supreme Court
Dual cases put justices at center of legal battle over limits for investigations into a sitting president

President Donald Trump’s attorneys on Thursday asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order from a federal appeals court in New York that requires accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a state subpoena for Trump’s financial and tax records. Another Trump lawsuit related to Mazars, one centered on congressional power to enforce subpoenas during impeachment or other oversight probes, will land at the high court on Friday. (Caroline Brehman/CQ Roll Call)

President Donald Trump’s fight-all-the-subpoenas strategy finally reached the Supreme Court late Thursday, putting the justices in the middle of a heated legal fight over the limits for investigations into a sitting president.

Trump’s attorneys asked the Supreme Court to reverse an order from a federal appeals court in New York that requires accounting firm Mazars USA to comply with a state subpoena for Trump's financial and tax records.