What makes a court proceeding fair? Explore the principles of impartiality, notice, meaningful hearings, evidence, reasoned decisions, consistent law, and judicial 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 hidden confession, disputed scientific testimony, a recorded police interview and thousands of cell-phone location records show how a single piece of evidence can transform a court case.
The person who knows the most about a case may never testify. Death, disappearance, privilege, the Fifth Amendment and strategic decisions can leave jurors deciding what happened without hearing from a crucial witness.
Some cases have no eyewitness, confession or video of the critical event. Instead, lawyers build the story from timing, records, behavior, physical evidence and dozens of facts that may look insignificant until they are put together.
Photos, email, social media, cloud files and online accounts can survive long after their owner dies. The law increasingly has to decide who may access, preserve or control a person's digital life.
Modern cars can record location, speed, braking, diagnostics and driving behavior. As vehicles become computers on wheels, a growing legal fight is developing over who can collect, use, share and control that data.
A locked phone can contain years of private information. Whether the government can force someone to unlock it may depend on how it is locked, what investigators already know and which court is deciding the issue.
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.
AI can produce images, music, writing and software in seconds, but copyright law was built around human creators. Courts and the Copyright Office are defining where human authorship ends and machine generation begins.
AI can now create convincing photographs, recordings and voices depicting events that never happened. Deepfakes are forcing courts to reconsider how digital evidence can be authenticated and trusted.
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.
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.
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.
