By its own admission, ICE now poses a serious threat to Americans’ free speech and privacy rights. bit.ly/3Kq348R

The Supreme Court has announced that it’s going to hear arguments on President Trump’s order rescinding birthright citizenship. The text and history ought to make this an open-and-shut case. bit.ly/40oplbc

The Trump administration and its supporters have made numerous threats to revoke the citizenship of political foes who are naturalized citizens — but if the government tries to follow through, it will have an uphill legal battle. bit.ly/4rh6WJT

The president cannot preempt state AI regulations through an executive order. The Constitution doesn’t give him this power, and Congress hasn’t delegated it. bit.ly/3Y0drDI

The national security justifications for the Trump administration’s expanded entry ban are just an excuse to target Muslims and Africans bit.ly/4b48pO3

Bush v. Gore exposed inconsistent standards across thousands of election jurisdictions nationwide that have only amplified with growing polarization. Hear from Ben Ginsberg, President George W. Bush’s lawyer in the case, in the latest episode of The Briefing with Michael Waldman. bit.ly/4atSVTf

Courts are using originalist arguments to expand executive power, weaken long-standing rights and protections, and entrench inequality. It’s crucial that lawyers push back. Our new guide shows you how. bit.ly/4iQ1v0B Art Credit: Adrià Fruitos

The Posse Comitatus Act has long prohibited using federal troops for routine law enforcement. bit.ly/47Qbde5

Birthright citizenship has been part of our constitution for over 150 years. The Trump administration wants to change that. Here are the facts: bit.ly/44Tm6Mn

Excellent reporting on how donors have benefited after giving to President Trump’s super PAC and other initiatives, like the WH ballroom. Money quote from a fmr WH staffer-turned-lobbyist: “These people are not getting coerced. They are making business decisions.” www.nytimes.com/interactive/...

Court rulings have made it easier for states like Texas to strategically delay the introduction of gerrymandered maps in order to make it harder for lawsuits to challenge them in time. bit.ly/44BBnku

Do you want to learn how to spot originalist arguments, understand how they work, and respond effectively? Then we’ve got the guide for you: Countering Originalism. It’s written for lawyers, but it can help scholars, teachers, students, journalists, and commentators, too. bit.ly/4iQ1v0B

The Trump administration’s abrupt termination of funding for criminal justice data collection and research will upend years of progress toward building safer communities bit.ly/3Y4QGP2

Court rulings have made it easier for states like Texas to strategically delay the introduction of gerrymandered maps in order to make it harder for lawsuits to challenge them in time. bit.ly/44BBnku

The president’s executive order on AI is little more than political theater. Here’s why: bit.ly/3Y0drDI

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority applies originalism to interpret the Constitution. Our new guide shows lawyers how to defeat shoddy historical arguments in court. bit.ly/44yksPF

Trump’s AI executive order may have created uncertainty for the many states that have passed policies to protect their residents, but its impact falls short of its menacing rhetoric. bit.ly/3Y0drDI

25 years ago this month, the ruling in Bush v. Gore marked a shift in the Supreme Court and elections. Legal experts including retired Florida Supreme Court Justice Barbara Pariente discuss the landmark case on The Briefing with Michael Waldman. bit.ly/48XI01I

Federal support for criminal justice data collection and research is crucial to public safety, and this year’s grant terminations threaten to undermine that work. Our experts detail the impact work solutions to rebuild support: bit.ly/3Y4QGP2

@stateline.org probes the deal the Justice Department has offered multiple states on their voter rolls. It would allow the federal government to identify voters to be dropped. That's unprecedented and dangerous. Our Eileen O'Connor weighs in. stateline.org/2025/12/18/t...

An antidemocratic Supreme Court ruling means that Texans will vote in the 2026 midterms using a map that a trial court found had been aggressively redrawn to target the seats of five Black and Latino members of Congress. bit.ly/44BBnku

Birthright citizenship has been part of our constitution for over 150 years. The Trump administration wants to change that. Here are the facts: bit.ly/44Tm6Mn

Trump’s AI executive order may have created uncertainty for the many states that have passed policies to protect their residents, but its impact falls short of its menacing rhetoric. bit.ly/3Y0drDI

Originalism is often a tool to cloak conservative policy choices in historical and legal jargon, so we've created a guide on how to beat originalists at their own game. bit.ly/44yksPF

The Supreme Court has strict limits on denaturalization that are deeply rooted in protections guaranteed by the 1st and 14th Amendments. Here's how they got there: bit.ly/4rh6WJT

For a generation, presidential races were blowouts. Then came the 2000 election, which led to Bush v. Gore. Legal experts discuss how the landmark case changed election politics on The Briefing with Michael Waldman: bit.ly/48XI01I

Momentum is building for a ban on congressional stock trading, which would help restore trust that our elected representatives and senators are responsive to voters — not their personal financial interests. Add your name to demand your representatives fight for this reform: bit.ly/3XWnREb

Yesterday, the Department of Justice filed lawsuits against the District of Columbia, Georgia, Illinois, and Wisconsin after they declined to comply with the department’s requests for their voter files, which contain voters’ personal data. See our tracker for more details 1/2:

The Supreme Court’s ruling in Bush v. Gore reshaped election law. In the latest episode of The Briefing with Michael Waldman, listen to David Boies, Al Gore’s lead lawyer in the case, reflect on its lasting legacy: bit.ly/4qptaIF

Outdated laws give presidents sweeping power to use the military at home to suppress protests and make mass arrests in times of war and domestic upheaval. bit.ly/4oxXJLN

Funding cuts by the Trump administration represent a departure from long-standing bipartisan support for criminal justice research and data collection — the cuts undermine that work and, by extension, public safety.

State constitutional law matters—now more than ever. @statecourtreport.org's latest roundup collects leading voices on the most influential state constitutional cases of 2025. Read it below 👇

The Florida Supreme Court yesterday UPHELD a law allowing non-unanimous juries to sentence people to death. This means: Even if 4 of 12 jurors vote to spare a person's life, Florida can still execute them. www.sun-sentinel.com/2025/12/18/j...

Court rulings have made it easier for states like Texas to strategically delay the introduction of gerrymandered maps in order to make it harder for lawsuits to challenge them in time. bit.ly/44BBnku

Courts are using originalist arguments to expand executive power, weaken long-standing rights and protections, and entrench inequality. It’s crucial that lawyers push back. Our new guide shows you how. bit.ly/44yksPF

FBI has launched investigations into alleged threats against ICE. But supposed “indicators” include perfectly legal activity like conducting online research. That could open the door to abuse, @rlevinsonwaldman.bsky.social tells @theguardian.com.

The lawyers on the front lines protecting our democracy are busy, to say the least. So, our new handbook gives them a battery of bite-size tips to counter originalism, supported with extensive citations to case law, scholarly literature, and court filings. www.brennancenter.org/our-work/res...

The president can’t do much to stop states from enacting and enforcing AI safety laws — and courts and state governments should know this. bit.ly/3Y0drDI

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority applies originalism to interpret the Constitution. Our new guide shows lawyers how to defeat shoddy historical arguments in court. bit.ly/44yksPF

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for Texas to use a map in the 2026 elections that heavily favors Republicans, overruling a bipartisan set of judges who found that those maps discriminate on the basis of race.

Experts discuss how the Supreme Court’s 2000 ruling in Bush v. Gore changed the relationship between Americans and elections — and between elections and the courts. Listen to The Briefing with Michael Waldman: bit.ly/4j1sqXr

The Trump administration and its supporters have made numerous threats to revoke the citizenship of political foes who are naturalized citizens — but if the government tries to follow through, it will have an uphill legal battle. bit.ly/4rh6WJT

Courts are using originalist arguments to expand executive power, weaken long-standing rights and protections, and entrench inequality. It’s crucial that lawyers push back. Our new guide shows you how. bit.ly/4iQ1v0B

An antidemocratic Supreme Court ruling means that Texans will vote in the 2026 midterms using a map that a trial court found had been aggressively redrawn to target the seats of five Black and Latino members of Congress. bit.ly/44BBnku

President Trump plans to ramp up efforts to strip some naturalized Americans of their citizenship. But when the government sets arbitrary targets, people who shouldn't be swept up, get swept up. Brennan Center’s @margyoh.bsky.social spoke to the NYTimes: nyti.ms/4p18Ufe

The president can’t do much to stop states from enacting and enforcing AI safety laws — and courts and state governments should know this. bit.ly/3Y0drDI

State Court Report asked some of the country's top legal thinkers about the most significant state constitutional cases of the year. Read answers from @dahlialithwick.bsky.social, Eugene Volokh, Erwin Chemerinsky, Justice Nathan Hecht, and many more! statecourtreport.org/our-work/ana...

What state constitutional case from 2025 should our readers know about, and why? We asked some of the country’s leading legal thinkers, and their answers highlight the myriad ways state courts can chart their own jurisprudential courses. A must read piece to wrap up the year!

The Supreme Court’s conservative supermajority applies originalism to interpret the Constitution. Our new guide shows lawyers how to defeat shoddy historical arguments in court. bit.ly/44yksPF

Per new guidance, Trump plans to ramp up efforts to strip some naturalized Americans of their citizenship. But when the government sets arbitrary targets, "people who shouldn't be swept up, get swept up," says @margyoh.bsky.social.