Republicans and independents who heard from Trump’s federal prosecutor became more supportive of the prosecution. Trump’s anti-prosecution rhetoric, by contrast, failed to increase support for the former...

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.

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...

Two reasons for cautious optimism—or at least cautious suspension of outright horror

If properly structured, both a commission of inquiry and a preliminary examination by the Israeli police could arguably meet existing complementarity standards.

The wisdom of the decision depends on unknowable future events.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. United States would have been wrong and dangerous at any time. It’s uncommonly so with Trump poised to retake power.