Matt Ford

@fordm

How a long-standing Supreme Court precedent is hindering constitutional challenges of partisan gerrymandering.

The president's racist attack on four Democratic congresswomen warrants universal condemnation, yet his supporters and party largely stand by him.

His planned raid against undocumented immigrants on Sunday recalls some of the darkest chapters in American history.

The labor secretary botched the Jeffrey Epstein case a decade ago—then he botched his chance to admit his mistakes. His boss must be proud.

If he really cares about reforming American democracy, he shouldn't blow his money on a doomed presidential bid.

His attempt to include a citizenship question on the census is part of a broader legal crusade that predates his presidency—and will outlive it.

Trump's self-aggrandizing July 4th parade is neither in good taste nor the spirit of the holiday—and Congress should ensure it never happens again.

#UnwantedIvanka and the equally omnipresent Jared aren't just meme-able jokes, they're conduits for graft and possible threats to national security.

Though liberals could issue a few sighs of relief, the recent term signaled a continued consolidation of conservative power.

In Rucho v. Common Cause, the conservative majority gave its approval to gerrymandering electoral districts to favor entrenched political interests.

With their decision Thursday, the justices offered a strong rebuke of the Trump administration's proposal to add a citizenship question to the census—but gave the administration the option of coming up with a better excuse.

The Justice has always shown a disregard for precedent, but with a shift in Supreme Court personnel, undoing progress could be the law of the land.

The Supreme Court justice had no patience for a legal challenge to a huge Christian cross maintained with taxpayer dollars.

Why does he think Republicans will work with him after they obstructed Obama for eight years? His praise of a segregationist offers a clue.

Trump's government is littered with "acting" department heads. Here's how he gets away with it, and how to stop it.

The Justice Department has never prosecuted a president after he leaves office. Kamala Harris wants to change that. What could go wrong?

An interview with J. T. Smith, who was there when the Justice Department concluded that a sitting president can't be indicted

Trump is inviting foreign meddling in American democracy (again), and the Democrats aren't doing enough to stop him (again).

Does anyone else believe that Republicans will come to their senses after Trump leaves office?