courts

The Trump administration invokes “fraud” to justify freezing Medicaid, SNAP, and family aid, sidestepping legal safeguards and turning vital programs into political weapons.

Recent state-led cases against the federal government demonstrate the range of injuries that states are successfully asserting under the current doctrines of state standing.

The White House's National AI Policy Framework asks Congress to shut down the only governments that are regulating AI, in exchange for a federal regime that would not.

Just Security's collection of more than 110 articles covering the Israel-Hamas War and its diplomatic, legal, and humanitarian consequences.

The most comprehensive study of court cases involving the Trump administration from January 20, 2025 to present

Former senior officials explain why the Trump administration's argument in Noem v. Al Otro Lado is morally troubling and legally wrong.

Judge Schiltz’s orders in Tobay Robles v. Noem expose 96 ICE court-order violations in one month and show how forcing top officials to testify can restore the rule of law.

Given international courts current role and relevant limitations in ending wars, how can courts play a more meaningful role in ending war, or in preventing a return to war?

Judicial involvement in ongoing armed conflicts should be examined from multiple vantage points: courts, victims, parties to conflict, and broader goals of peace and security.

Although international courts have limits, they can do what few other peaceful dispute resolution mechanisms can when it comes to ending war.

When international courts intervene in active wars, they must contend with how (and whether) they can contribute to ending wars and shape the post-war aftermath. 

“Alien land laws” frame Asian land ownership as a national security threat despite minimal evidence, echoing the United States’ historical exclusionary policies.