Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, fresh off her role in the inauguration of President Obama's second term, joins Brian Lehrer to talk about her new memoir and her life on the bench.

The Supreme Court will hear two cases that challenge federal marriage laws. One of those cases is from New York. Here to shed some light on the case and what’s at stake is Slate senior editor Emily Bazelon.

The justices are considering whether the state can require proof of citizenship when people register to vote.

I am tired of explaining why it is  still necessary in the 21st Century. I am tired of the  divisiveness of the discussion. I am tired of having to justify my  place at the table. Just tired. 

The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments Wednesday on whether the University of Texas at Austin wrongly discriminated against a white woman who sought admission in 2008. The decision could have broad implications, and a wide range of interested parties in New York City are watching the case closely.

Is affirmative action racism? See what WNYC viewers thought.

It’s a topic Lee Bollinger, president of Columbia University, is very familiar with. It was during his tenure as president of the University of Michigan that the Supreme Court  upheld the affirmative action policies of the university’s law school in the landmark 2003 case Grutter v. Bollinger.

There are so many good cases and issues to consider this term, I can’t write about them in a single post.

The American political system was constructed and remains a machine designed to slow down - not expedite - policy.

Kurt Andersen is a man of many talents. In addition to hosting Studio 360, Andersen just published a new novel, "True Believers." What does the new novel, based mostly in the 1960s, say about change in the United States?

Swing voters didn't like what the Democrats were doing when they had the Senate, House and White House, we don't like what the Republicans have done with their expanded minority the last year and a half either.

Republicans got to work immediately deciding how yesterday’s decision on the Affordable Care Act should inform their game plan going forward. A year and a half ago, House Republicans passed a bill to repeal the healthcare law. Those Republicans met again yesterday to plan out their next steps in the months ahead.

Amy Howe, editor of SCOTUSblog and a partner at Goldstein & Russell, a law firm specializing in Supreme Court litigation, discusses the Stolen Valor ruling—and SCOTUSblog's coverage of the Supreme Court this session.

Christine Vestal, health policy reporter for Stateline, a news service from the Pew Center on the States, discusses how states are reacting to the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, which upheld the law but allowed states to opt out of some elements.

On the heels of today’s Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, Propublica’s Charlie Ornstein and The Economist’s Charlotte Howard take a look back at the political talking points which engulfed what came to be known as “Obamacare.”

President Obama used one of the GOP’s favorite talking points against them in the wake of Thursday’s landmark Supreme Court decision upholding the Affordable Care Act.

The Supreme Court’s decision today affirms the constitutionality of Barack Obama's signature health care law and the individual mandate that was at the heart of the case.

Many Americans cannot afford health insurance, and they have been flocking to hospital emergency rooms across the country, one of our society’s remaining “safety nets” for the poor and uninsured. As we anticipate tomorrow’s Supreme Court ruling on President Obama’s universal health care law, those people are waiting on much more than a hospital visit.

In fewer than 200 words on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Montana's 100-year-old prohibition on corporate spending in elections, setting the stage for renewed efforts to overturn Citizens United that don't involve the nation's highest court.

The last decade began with the Court ordering a state to stop counting votes and ended with the Court repealing a century of precedent governing political contributions. Imagine where the next decade could go.

If the White House is hoping to clamp down on leaks, they might want to take a few tips from their colleagues at the Supreme Court. Not only do we have no idea how the court will rule on the Affordable Care Act, we're not even sure when the decision will be released. How do they keep their decisions so secret?