The Supreme Court,
explained in plain English.
Independent coverage of every major case, decision, and legal issue — written for everyday Americans who want to understand the law without being told what to think.
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n
The Supreme Court held that federal limits on a political party's campaign spending in coordination with its candidates violate the First Amendment.
Trump v. Barbara
The Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present.
What the Court just decided
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n
The Supreme Court held that federal limits on a political party's campaign spending in coordination with its candidates violate the First Amendment.
Read the full breakdownThe Supreme Court held that the Constitution guarantees citizenship to children born in the United States even if their parents are unlawfully or temporarily present.
The Supreme Court declined to review a case involving the enforceability of a legal waiver that prevents a defendant from challenging their conviction in court.
The Supreme Court ruled that schools may limit participation on women’s and girls’ sports teams to biological females under Title IX and the Constitution.
Cases awaiting a decision.
This section tracks the cases the Supreme Court hears during its term, from argument to decision. The Court isn't sitting for arguments right now. New cases will appear here once the next argument session opens — usually the first Monday of October, with additional sittings through April.
What Americans are tracking
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Comm'n
The Supreme Court decided that the government cannot set limits on how much money a political party spends when it is working together with a candidate. In the past, there was a rule saying a party could only spend a certain amount on things like TV ads if they talked to the candidate about it first. The Court said this rule went against the First Amendment's right to free speech. The judges explained that parties and candidates need to work together to share their message with voters. They also said that because there are already other laws that make everyone show where their money comes from, these extra limits aren't needed to stop cheating or bribery.
More plain-language explainersHow recent rulings touch everyday life
For most citizens, this means that political parties may become more prominent in federal campaigns than they have been in recent decades. You may see more television or social media advertisements produced by parties that are perfectly synchronized with a candidate's specific campaign message. While the total amount of money in politics might increase, proponents of the change believe it will make campaign messaging more coherent. Those concerned about the change may worry about the influence of large donors who give to parties, though these donations will still be subject to public disclosure laws.
Read more →For most people, this means the current system for determining citizenship at birth will remain the same. If a child is born within the boundaries of the United States, that child is an American citizen regardless of where their parents are from or why they were in the country. This prevents changes to citizenship rules that would depend on a parent's visa status or immigration standing. The ruling ensures that citizenship remains a birthright that the government cannot remove through executive action alone.
Read more →For most people, this decision reinforces the significant weight of plea agreements in the federal system. When a person signs a waiver as part of a plea deal, they may be permanently giving up their right to go back to court, even if the Supreme Court later decides that the law used to convict them was unconstitutional. The decision highlights that the legal finality of a contract between the government and a defendant often takes precedence over new changes in constitutional law. However, Justice Sotomayor's statement suggests that some judges are concerned about the fairness of keeping people in prison for acts that are no longer considered crimes.
Read more →