Stephen Carter

Recent stories about the parlous state of Democratic Party fundraising have raised an issue regarding a perhaps unnoticed constitutional decision. It appears that some big donors are concerned about how various independent groups spent their money during the last election cycle. But should the party’s nominee try to do better next time around — for example, by arranging for one group to invest in state A and another group to invest in state B — the campaign would run afoul of federal law, which

President Donald Trump’s recent flurry of attempts to deploy National Guard troops in cities around the country reminds me of an old “block-that-metaphor” line from the New Yorker: “As I look at things with a broad brush, there are lots of things going south out there, and there’s no silver bullet.” With this particular president and his constant whirligig of threats, puffery and offhand remarks, one never knows whether he is announcing a genuine policy initiative or simply reveling in the furio

There’s been a lot of excitement about last week’s ruling by a federal judge in Boston that the Trump administration, in its efforts to deport college students holding objectionable political views, violated the First Amendment. Commentators have described the opinion by District Judge William G. Young as “blistering” and a “landmark” — and so on in that vein. And I’m pleased to see that the court tried to find a way to extend the protections of free speech to those present in the country on tem

FCC Chair Brendan Carr shouldn’t have uttered a word about Jimmy Kimmel’s monologue. But government officials have been browbeating broadcasters since John F. Kennedy.

The government has no business trying to regulate speech about itself — and that includes Donald Trump.

Forcing immigration officers to reveal their identities sounds appealing, but the costs could be high.

Chief Justice Roberts’ ruling in an FTC case leaves the Federal Reserve as the sole independent agency whose members the president can’t fire.

The Supreme Court, which has deemed the Federal Reserve distinct from other federal agencies, is likely to uphold a challenge to her dismissal.

Democratic lawmakers are following a time-honored American tradition in dodging votes by dodging town, but federal agents shouldn’t be part of the chase.

Democratic lawmakers are following a time-honored American tradition in dodging votes by dodging town, but federal agents shouldn’t be part of the chase.

Sixty years after the Voting Rights Act was signed, the protections it provides are under attack.

A Chicago court’s decision reinforces a core principle of democracy, regardless of disagreements about immigration policy.

Trump’s refusal to enforce the law isn’t the real problem. It’s the legislative branch’s job to keep the executive in line.

The lawsuit should have been thrown out from the start. But the deal contains at least one small future protection for the media.

The ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor should remind public schools that they’re working with parents, not competing against them.

A Supreme Court decision means a task force’s medical recommendations stand — for now.

The South Carolina case before the Supreme Court was about whether a woman could sue the state to enforce a provision of Medicaid law. But the implications are much broader.

The Supreme Court’s decision allowing lawsuits by victims of overseas attacks to move forward is likely to have consequences for both future suits and the law.

The Supreme Court handed a win to RJ Reynolds in the FDA’s haphazard effort to regulate e-cigarettes. But will it make us healthier?

In its ruling on Tennessee’s ban on gender-affirming care for minors, the majority made clear it wants no part of the debate.