U.S. Supreme Court

Scott Sady / AP Photo

Business groups are cheering a unanimous decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in a case brought by Amazon warehouse workers. The justices rejected the workers’ argument that they should be paid for the time spent waiting to go through security screenings.

Scott Sady / AP Photo

Amazon warehouse workers will have their moment before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday when the justices will hear arguments in a case over whether the workers should be paid for time spent waiting to go through security screenings. 

UpstateNYer / Flickr

In a noteworthy decision issued Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court narrowed the president's power to make recess appointments when the Senate is not in session. 

The unanimous decision held that three appointments President Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board in 2012 were invalid because the Senate was not technically in recess. The ruling stemmed from a labor dispute in Yakima, Washington.

Steve Dykes / AP Photo

The U.S. Supreme Court won't block same-sex marriages in Oregon. The high court on Wednesday turned down a request to halt gay marriages in the state. 

Paula Wissel / KPLU

Many people in Washington state are reacting with excitement to the news that the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a key part of the federal Defense of Marriage Act and reinstated the right for gays and lesbians in California to marry. 

In a decision that could have broad-reaching effects on the future of science and medicine, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday that:

-- "A naturally occurring DNA segment is a product of nature and not patent eligible merely because it has been isolated."

-- But, synthetically created "strands of nucleotides known as composite DNA (cDNA)" are "patent eligible" because they do not occur naturally.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, influential conservative and pugilistic dissenter, is challenging everything from a recent leak about Supreme Court deliberations, to conventional wisdom about the court and its history.

In a new book co-authored with Bryan Garner, Scalia spells out his judicial philosophy, and on Tuesday, the always voluble, charming and combative justice sat for a wide-ranging interview — about the book, his relationships on the court, and the recent leak alleging anger among the justices over the recent health care decision.

It was much rumored as soon as the 5-4 decision that upheld President Obama's signature health care law was announced.

Chief Justice John Roberts had sided with the liberal wing of the court and he had done so after initially voting in favor of striking down the individual mandate, the part of the law the required every American to obtain health care.

There were winners and losers in the journalistic race to get out the news of the Supreme Court's momentous ruling upholding the administration's health care law Thursday.

You may already have made a mental note as to where you were when you heard the Supreme Court had upheld the health care law known as Obamacare. It's one of those moments that become touchstones of our memory, personal connections to the history we have witnessed in our lifetimes.

The Supreme Court may not be the source of such moments very often, but when its rulings reach this level of our awareness, they alter the course of our lives.

The White House has released a picture of President Obama on the phone with Solicitor General Donald Verrilli in the Oval Office after hearing the health care news. Verrilli was the one who argued the case in front of the Supreme Court.

Here's the picture:

Obama looks rather relaxed. But both The New York Times and NBC News report that Obama, who received the news like most Americans, first thought his signature legislation had been declared unconstitutional.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's landmark decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act, one of the burning questions is how will the decision play out politically?

President Obama even acknowledged the inevitability of the political maneuvering and handicapping in his comments from the White House soon after the high court delivered its decision. But he did stress that politics wasn't what really mattered in the end.

The Associated Press

Washington state is on a fast-track to providing discounted insurance for thousands of uninsured people by January 2014.

The Supreme Court has upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The court on Thursday handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid. But even there, it said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold the entire Medicaid allotment to states if they don't take part in the extension.

The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Bryer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

“We are in a very good position, because we have already received the federal funds to not only build our health-care exchange, or marketplace, but to operate it for the first year,” says State Sen. Karen Keiser (D), Kent, who chairs a key senate health committee.

Outside the U.S. Supreme Court early this morning, there were some tired faces, quite a few smiles and the vibe you sometimes feel when a pack of marathoners is nearing the finish line.

Everyone's tired, but there's a sense of anticipation that the long legal slog is almost over.

Three months after historic arguments before the high court over the constitutionality of the administration's sweeping health care law, we're about to find out if it will hold up.

WASHINGTON — The Senate's top Democrat says the Supreme Court's decision on Arizona's immigration law opens the way to racial profiling by police.

Nevada Sen. Harry Reid said after Monday's decision that the high court was right to strike down most of Arizona's immigration law, which President Barack Obama and many Democrats say is unconstitutional. But Reid said he is concerned that the high court upheld one provision that requires police to check immigration papers of people they stop for other violations.

Pages