Cara Bayles

Republican lawmakers have long dreamed of breaking up the nation's largest appellate court. But that fervor has diminished as the Ninth Circuit's balance of Democratic and Republican appointees has evened out in recent years, upending the circuit's status as a culture war lightning rod.

U.S. Court of Federal Claims Judge Elaine Kaplan's docket doesn't always garner attention in the same way trial court cases do, but that may change as the executive branch makes sweeping budget and policy changes that could lend more political significance to monetary claims against the government.

Bankruptcy might seem like a technical and obscure practice area, but not to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon.

Bankruptcy might seem like a technical and obscure practice area, but not to U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Brendan Shannon.

In the two months since the Supreme Court hobbled universal injunctions, lawyers and trial judges have pivoted to adjust to a new litigation landscape, with class actions playing a larger role in lawsuits seeking to stop presidential policies. That, in turn, could put the tactic in the administration's crosshairs.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted along ideological lines when it hindered the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide pauses on presidential policies, but that outcome didn't seem like a foregone conclusion during oral arguments earlier this year. What do the colloquies suggest about the justices' thinking? Here are some moments that may have swayed them.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted along ideological lines when it hindered the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide pauses on presidential policies, but that outcome didn't seem like a foregone conclusion during oral arguments earlier this year. What do the colloquies suggest about the justices' thinking? Here are some moments that may have swayed them.

The U.S. Supreme Court voted along ideological lines when it hindered the ability of federal district court judges to issue nationwide pauses on presidential policies, but that outcome didn't seem like a foregone conclusion during oral arguments earlier this year. What do the colloquies suggest about the justices' thinking? Here are some moments that may have swayed them.

The term's sharpest dissents often looked beyond perceived flaws in majority reasoning to raise existential concerns about the role and future of the court, with the justices accusing one another of rewarding executive branch lawlessness, harming faith in the judiciary and threatening democracy, sometimes on an emergency basis with little briefing or explanation.

The term's sharpest dissents often looked beyond perceived flaws in majority reasoning to raise existential concerns about the role and future of the court, with the justices accusing one another of rewarding executive branch lawlessness, harming faith in the judiciary and threatening democracy, sometimes on an emergency basis with little briefing or explanation.