Chief Justice Roberts gives neither Trump nor any future president a green light to tyranny, as some initial reactions to his opinion fear.

The upcoming release of the Palestine Advisory Opinion may raise significant questions about how the International Court of Justice establishes the facts on which an alleged breach of the law is made.

Both cases found the justices split on whether to separate the president from the presidency.

Overturning the law on First Amendment grounds would require courts to make policy judgments that should be left to the political branches.

The majority opinion in Trump v. United States badly misstates principles of separation of powers to immunize hypothetical future presidents—in service of immunity for Trump himself.

Missing in much commentary about Trump v. United States is what it means for the expansion of immunities for presidents while in office.

Neither the Rome Statute nor fundamental fairness evidently permitted the ICC prosecutor to instruct an external panel of legal experts he assembled to review evidence he used to support his applications...