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.
Trump v. California
The Supreme Court stayed an injunction against an Executive Order on election integrity, finding that states likely lacked standing to challenge internal federal directives.
Trump v. Barbara Revisions: 7/01/26
The Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
What the Court just decided
Trump v. California
The Supreme Court stayed an injunction against an Executive Order on election integrity, finding that states likely lacked standing to challenge internal federal directives.
Read the full breakdownThe Supreme Court held that children born in the U.S. to parents who are temporarily or unlawfully present are citizens under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The Supreme Court held that federal limits on a political party's campaign spending in coordination with its candidates violate the First Amendment.
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.
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
Trump v. California
The President signed a set of instructions for federal agencies to help check if people voting are U.S. citizens and to change how mail-in ballots are tracked. Some states sued, saying these new rules were unfair and interfered with how they run their own elections. A lower court judge agreed with the states and told the government to stop. But the Supreme Court stepped in and said the government can keep working on these rules for now. The Supreme Court explained that the states sued too early because the government hasn't actually changed any laws for the states yet. Since the states haven't been hurt by the instructions yet, the Court decided the lawsuit shouldn't have moved forward.
More plain-language explainersHow recent rulings touch everyday life
For now, the way elections are run in most states will not change because the Executive Order does not currently force states to use federal citizenship lists. However, federal agencies are now free to start the process of creating those lists and suggesting new rules for mail-in ballots. If these agencies eventually pass final rules, voters might see changes in how ballot envelopes are tracked or how states verify citizenship. Everyday citizens are not directly restricted by this ruling, as it focuses on the internal instructions the President gives to federal employees.
Read more →For families where parents are in the U.S. on temporary visas or are here without legal authorization, this ruling ensures their children born on U.S. soil are legally U.S. citizens. These children remain eligible for U.S. passports and the same rights as any other citizen by birth. The ruling means that the rules for who becomes a citizen at birth remain unchanged despite the executive order. Most people will see no change in how citizenship is handled at hospitals or government offices.
Read more →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 →