The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court a federal judge’s order to provide full SNAP benefits for November. The high court agreed.

Updated on Nov. 7 at 9:34 p.m. The Trump administration on Friday night asked the Supreme Court to pause a ruling by a federal judge in Rhode Island that requires […]

The Supreme Court’s questioning of the use of a 1977 emergency law to impose tariffs on scores of countries raised doubt about the centerpiece of the president’s economic agenda.

WASHINGTON, Nov 5 (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court justices raised doubts on Wednesday over the legality of President Donald Trump 's sweeping tariffs in a case with implications for the global economy that marks a major test of Trump's powers.

In one of the most significant legal cases for President Donald Trump's administration, the Supreme Court on Wednesday appeared skeptical of the president’s claim of unbounded tariff authority -- though some of the justices signaled a potential willingness to give the president some flexibility on foreign trade.

President Donald Trump told reporters Thursday it would be “devastating for our country” if he lost a Supreme Court case that could invalidate his administration’s most far-reaching tariffs.

In the biggest legal test yet of President Donald Trump’s economic agenda, several conservative justices on the Supreme Court have signaled skepticism about his power to unilaterally impose sweeping tariffs.

U.S. Supreme Court justices appeared heavily skeptical of the government's arguments for using emergency powers to impose tariffs during oral arguments.

Few cases arrive at the Supreme Court with a set of facts and a legal question more tailor-made for a conservative 6-3 majority that has in recent years consistently backed religious claims.

President Donald Trump has warned that the Supreme Court will leave the United States “defenseless’’ and possibly “reduced to almost Third World status’’ if it strikes down the tariffs

Landor v. Louisiana involves whether an inmate of a minority religious group, the Rastafarians, can sue for monetary damages after the warden violated his religious rights – specifically, the right to not cut his hair.