Why do courts issue written opinions and explain their rulings? Explore how judicial reasoning promotes transparency, accountability, precedent, consistency, and meaningful appellate review.
A federal jury found that an insurance executive and marketing CEO built a massive ACA enrollment fraud scheme by targeting homeless, unemployed and vulnerable people, generating at least $180 million in federal subsidies.
Court-ordered community service is supposed to require actual service. But documented schemes have sold certificates claiming defendants completed hours they never worked, turning a sentencing requirement into a piece of paper.
Some famous lawsuits appear to be about environmental protection, marriage, government policy or constitutional rights. But before a court can decide who is right, it may have to answer a more basic question: does this person have the right to bring the case at all?
The Supreme Court follows precedent, but precedent is not unchangeable. From segregation and economic regulation to privacy and abortion, some landmark rulings exist because the Court concluded an earlier Supreme Court decision should no longer control.
A fish, an airplane, a tomato and some of the biggest civil-rights and regulatory disputes in America have turned on the meaning of a word or short phrase. These cases show how much can depend on the language Congress chose.
A fence, tree, driveway, noise complaint or property line can turn two neighbors into courtroom opponents. Neighbor disputes show how small conflicts become expensive lawsuits—and why the original disagreement is often only the beginning.
A confession can seem like the strongest evidence imaginable. Yet documented wrongful convictions show that innocent people sometimes confess—and understanding why can completely change how a case is viewed.
Some cases turn on evidence that was there from the beginning but seemed unimportant at first. A receipt, photograph, timestamp or forgotten record can take on an entirely different meaning once a case reaches trial.
Screenshots of texts, social media posts and websites appear in court every day. But a screenshot does not prove itself. Courts still have to determine what it shows, where it came from and whether it is authentic.
Police can search many things after making a lawful arrest, but a smartphone is different. Here is why the Supreme Court generally requires a warrant before officers search the digital contents of an arrested person's phone.
A case can have strong evidence and still unravel because of a missed deadline, lost record, inconsistent statement or procedural mistake. Some of the most consequential failures in litigation have little to do with who was originally right.
Modern investigations can use location data to identify devices near a crime scene, potentially drawing innocent bystanders into an investigation simply because their phones were nearby.
Two cameras can record the same event and make it look completely different. Angle, timing, sound, missing seconds and perspective can turn video evidence into the beginning of a courtroom dispute rather than the end of one.
A few recorded words can transform a lawsuit or criminal case. Phone calls, voicemails, body cameras and other recordings can expose contradictions, preserve admissions and reveal what witnesses said before they knew a courtroom was coming.
AI systems increasingly help make decisions about employment, credit, insurance, housing and other opportunities. When an automated decision causes harm, the law still has to determine who is responsible.
A confident eyewitness can be extraordinarily persuasive to a jury. But when that confidence developed—and what happened after the witness first saw the suspect—can matter as much as how certain the witness appears in court.
A receipt can establish where money went, when a purchase happened and whether a story fits the records. But sometimes the most important evidence is the receipt that should exist—and doesn't.
