The U.S. Supreme Court signaled on Wednesday that it is actively debating how to interpret the wording of a law that limits when a president can use members of the National Guard in a challenge to President Donald Trump's bid to dispatch troops to the Chicago area.

The most robust challenge to Trump's authority to deploy troops occurred with Newsom v Trump, which upheld that the president had federal authority over National Guard troops deployed to Los Angeles during widespread protests against the deportations earlier this year.

Most judges who have considered President Donald Trump’s disputed tariffs have ruled against him. But when the Supreme Court hears his appeal next week, it may be influenced by a forceful dissenting opinion that highlighted a 1981 case from the Iranian hostage crisis.

The Supreme Court indicated that it is not prepared to rule over whether President Trump has legal authority to deploy members of the National Guard to the Chicago area.

After 12 days of silence about the deployment of troops in Illinois, the justices are now asking “whether the term ‘regular forces’ refers to the regular forces of the United States military, and, if so,

The Supreme Court on Wednesday took the rare step of asking for additional briefing in a high-profile, emergency case challenging President Donald Trump’s deployment of the National Guard to Chicago,

(Reuters) -As the state of Alabama prepared to execute a death row inmate on Thursday with nitrogen gas, the U.S.

A Crusader for Social Justice Becomes a Supreme Court Justice" tells the story of Brandeis, who was the first Jewish person to serve from 1916 to 1939.

The Alabama Supreme Court has denied a petition from a Lawrence County man to appeal his sentence of life in prison without parole.