This practical conversation will explore originalism, historical evidence, and how lawyers and historians can work together in the courts.

Historians filed a brief supporting a challenge to the federal government’s policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty on the basis of their speech and associations.

The Grateful Dead endured an original run of 30 years, but its appeal has survived just as long in a world where the band no longer exists. The question now is not whether the music will continue, but...

The birthright citizenship case the Supreme Court just decided demonstrates how deep-rooted this practice is.

This guide offers lawyers strategies, arguments, and citations to address originalist claims they encounter in litigation.

Eric Klinenberg and Daniel Aldana Cohen discuss flash flooding and sponge infrastructure in New York City

In these two cases, the Court misread and ignored history with an unmistakable result: two fundamentally irreconcilable decisions.

President Trump today terminated two members of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, and the agency’s remaining Republican commissioner resigned. This leaves the Election Assistance Commission — a...

The justices had a simple task in Trump v. Barbara: uphold their oaths. Only five were willing to do so.

YouTube video by Brennan Center for Justice

Thomas Wolf and Samuel Breidbart: The decision in Trump v. Barbara is a rare moment of restraint in this court’s ongoing anti-democratic rampage.

Thomas Wolf and Samuel Breidbart: The decision in Trump v. Barbara is a rare moment of restraint in this court’s ongoing anti-democratic rampage.

Thomas Wolf and Samuel Breidbart: The decision in Trump v. Barbara is a rare moment of restraint in this court’s ongoing anti-democratic rampage.

The Brennan Center welcomes Kate Andrias, Olatunde Johnson, William Novak, Alice O’Brien, and Julie Suk as the new Polan Fellows. Drawn from the law and academia, the fellows will join the fight for the future of the U.S. Constitution.

The Court’s opinion in Trump v. United States is a dangerous attack on the rule of law.