ELENA KAGAN

The Supreme Court’s six conservative justices have indicated they will uphold a Mississippi law that bans abortion after 15 weeks of pregnancy.

The Supreme Court has heard arguments in which the court was asked to overturn a nationwide right to abortion that has existed for nearly 50 years.

Supreme Court justices considering a major abortion case Wednesday will hear from just three lawyers: one representing the state of Mississippi, another representing Mississippi’s only abortion clinic and the last representing the Biden administration.

On Dec. 1, the Supreme Court will consider a Mississippi law that could overturn Roe v. Wade — the 1973 ruling establishing a nationwide right to abortion. Here's what we know about where each justice stands on the issue.

It's been more than two weeks since the Supreme Court’s extraordinarily rushed arguments over Texas’ unique abortion law, and still no word from the justices.

A lawsuit over new voting laws in Texas is bringing the state into court once again with the Biden administration.

The Supreme Court seems ready to strike down a restrictive New York gun permitting law.

The Supreme Court has allowed a Texas law that bans most abortions to remain in effect for now.

The Biden administration is looking to the U.S. Supreme Court in an attempt to halt a restrictive Texas law that has banned most abortions since September.

A commission tasked with studying potential changes to the Supreme Court is releasing a first look at its review.

The Supreme Court is considering whether to uphold an appeals court's decision to overturn Boston Bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev's death sentence.

Abortion, guns and religion top the Supreme Court's new term.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor is encouraging citizens to work to change laws they may disagree with, such as a recent Texas law that limits access to abortions.

To some observers, the Supreme Court is facing the most serious threat to its legitimacy since its decision in Bush v.

The Supreme Court is having a credibility crisis as fewer and fewer Americans believe that it is a nonpartisan, unbiased institution.

The return to in-person proceedings was announced more than a year after the coronavirus pandemic forced the Supreme Court to hear cases over the phone.

There can be no more doubts how Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Coney Barrett feel about abortion rights

Traditionally, the process of getting an opinion from the U.S. Supreme Court takes months and those rulings are often narrowly tailored.

Chief Justice Roberts, 3 other dissenters slam colleagues for hastily rewarding Texas 'bounty hunter' abortion ban scheme

President Joe Biden is denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision not to block a new Texas law banning most abortions in the state.

The Supreme Court says the Biden administration likely violated federal law in trying to end a Trump-era program that forces people to wait in Mexico while seeking asylum in the U.S. With three liberal justices in dissent, the high court refused Tuesday to block a lower court ruling ordering the administration to reinstate the program informally known as Remain in Mexico.

The Supreme Court is blocking part of New York’s moratorium on evictions, put into effect because of the coronavirus pandemic, less than a month before it is supposed to expire anyway.

President Joe Biden has nominated acting Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar to be his administration’s top Supreme Court lawyer on a permanent basis.

The right-wing majority on the Supreme Court just undercut the Voting Rights Act again. The right-wing justices continue their assault on the meaning and power of the Voting Rights Act, a triumph of the civil rights movement that Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, noted represents the “best in America.” The reaction against the civil rights movement continues. Now, after the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act and the election of Barack Obama, the reaction has been fierce. Voter suppression following the civil rights movement was ratified in Shelby v. Holder and now in Brnovich vs. the DNC, that have essentially gutted the Voting Rights Act, the crown jewel of the civil rights movement. Once more, those standing in the way of equality under the law will find that the movement for justice will not be deterred.

What many regard as the most important civil rights law in American history has been left a mocking, hollow shell.

What many regard as the most important civil rights law in American history has been left a mocking, hollow shell.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled against an Alabama inmate whose lawyers argued that his trial counsel should have done more to try to show he is intellectually disabled and therefore he should be spared a death sentence. In an unsigned 6-3 opinion, the conservative majority on Friday reversed an 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals finding and said that a state court had correctly rejected claims that Matthew Reeves had ineffective counsel at trial because they did not hire a neuropsychologist to present evidence he is intellectually disabled. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, said the majority’s decision continues a “troubling trend in which this Court strains to reverse summarily any grants of relief to those facing execution.”

An unusually agreeable Supreme Court term has ended with conservative-driven decisions on voting rights and charitable-donor disclosures.

Justice Elena Kagan decries the Supreme Court's 'tragic' voting rights decision in scathing dissent

The court, by a 6-3 vote, reversed a lower court ruling in deciding that Arizona’s limits on who can return early ballots.

The justices, in a 6-3 opinion, narrowed the only major section of the landmark Voting Rights Act that remains in effect.

The Supreme Court has revived claims of excessive force against St. Louis police officers in a case in which a homeless man died after being restrained in handcuffs and leg shackles.

The Supreme Court refused Wednesday categorically to extend the "hot pursuit" exception to the warrant requirement to misdemeanor crimes.

The Supreme Court on Wednesday put limits on when police officers pursuing a fleeing suspect can enter a home without a warrant.

The court has long held that police may do this when pursuing a fleeing felon. The question in this case was whether they can do the same thing when pursuing someone suspected of a minor offense.

WASHINGTON — The arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett in October seemed to create a 6-3 conservative juggernaut that would transform the Supreme Court. Instead, judging by the 39 signed decisions in argued cases so far this term, including two major rulings Thursday, the right side of the court is badly fractured and its liberal members are having a surprisingly good run. Sign up for The Morning newsletter from the New York Times That picture may change, as the court has yet to issue the term’s

June continues to be a busy month for the Supreme Court. The court ruled on programs for immigrants, draft eligibility & the FDA's power over vapes.

There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with a TPS designation.

A unanimous Supreme Court has ruled that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents.

A unanimous Supreme Court ruled Monday that thousands of people living in the U.S. for humanitarian reasons are ineligible to apply to become permanent residents. Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court that federal immigration law prohibits people who entered the country illegally and now have Temporary Protected Status from seeking “green cards” to remain in the country permanently. There are 400,000 people from 12 countries with TPS status.

The Supreme Court has refused to hear an appeal from a Missouri death row inmate who is seeking execution by firing squad.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg moved slowly in her last years on the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court says that prisoners who were convicted by non-unanimous juries before the high court barred the practice a year ago don’t need to be retried.

An unusual coalition of Supreme Court justices has joined to rule in favor of an immigrant fighting deportation.

A wary Supreme Court has weighed whether public schools can discipline students for things they say off campus.

The Supreme Court appears likely to put a stop to California’s practice of collecting the names and addresses of top donors to charities.

Before the Supreme Court this week is an argument over whether public schools can discipline students over something they say off-campus.

On one side of upcoming Supreme Court arguments over a proposed natural gas pipeline in New Jersey are two lawyers with more than 250 arguments between them.

The Supreme Court is telling California that it can’t enforce coronavirus-related restrictions that have limited home-based religious worship including Bible studies and prayer meetings.

The dispute before the Supreme Court is the first involving antitrust laws and the billion-dollar NCAA to land before the justices in decades. A lower court last year ruled the NCAA could not limit education-related benefits, such as post-graduate scholarships, internships, computers and science equipment, to student-athletes. So, the argument is they are recruited, they're used up and then they're cast aside, without even a college degree. The NCAA has long relied on a 1984 Supreme Court ruling to justify its amateurism framework. Justice Brett Kavanaugh told Waxman he believes antitrust laws "should not be a cover for exploitation of the student athletes.

The case was brought by Shawne Alston, who was a running back for the West Virginia Mountaineers, and other student athletes. Elizabeth Prelogar, the acting solicitor general, argued in favor of the student athletes. Several of the court's conservatives expressed concerns that the NCAA's arguments are hypocritical or exploitative. Kavanaugh added that he believes the Board of Regents case Waxman relied on "really was from a different era" and not persuasive. Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas and Amy Coney Barrett also seemed disturbed by some of the NCAA's arguments.

A Supreme Court case being argued this week amid March Madness could erode the difference between elite college athletes and professional sports stars. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky, File)WASHINGTON – A Supreme Court case being argued this week amid March Madness could erode the difference between elite college athletes and professional sports stars. In 1984, the high court rejected NCAA rules restricting the broadcast of college football. Currently, athletic scholarships can cover the cost of college athletes’ attendance at college. Whatever happens at the high court, how college athletes are compensated is already likely changing.

People view the Supreme Court building from behind security fencing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Sunday, March 21, 2021, after portions of an outer perimeter of fencing were removed overnight to allow public access. (AP Photo/Patrick Semansky)WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court is siding with a New Mexico woman who was shot by police as she drove away from them, in a case that will allow more excessive force lawsuits against police to go forward. “The question in this case is whether a seizure occurs when an officer shoots someone who temporarily eludes capture after the shooting. She claimed they used excessive force, making the shooting an unreasonable seizure under the Fourth Amendment. A lower court ruled for officers and dismissed the case; an appeals court agreed.

FILE - In this Nov. 30, 2018, file photo, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer sits with fellow Supreme Court justices for a group portrait at the Supreme Court Building in Washington. Scott Applewhite, File)WASHINGTON – Forgive progressives who aren't looking forward to the sequel of their personal “Nightmare on First Street," a Supreme Court succession story. Other liberal voices have said Breyer should retire when the court finishes its work for the term, usually by early summer. Among the names being circulated are California Supreme Court Justice Leondra Kruger, U.S. District Court Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson and U.S. District Court Judge Michelle Childs. Breyer's departure wouldn't do anything to change the conservatives' 6-3 edge on the Supreme Court.

Washington attorney Michael Carvin, representing Arizona Republicans, said the court should uphold state election rules as long as voting is “equally open” to all groups. AdvertisementDuring Tuesday’s argument, Justice Elena Kagan pressed the Republicans’ attorney to clarify when voting rules should be considered to be “equally open” to racial minorities. Eight years ago, the court’s conservatives struck down the best-known and most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. But Roberts emphasized in the 2013 decision that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — at issue now — remained in full effect nationwide. Gen. Mark Brnovich focused on the second clause of the law, and argued Arizona election rules should be upheld because in their “totality” they do not deny minorities an equal opportunity to vote.

The order from the high court follows two years in which inmates saw some rare success in bringing challenges based on the issue of chaplains in the death chamber. This time, liberal and conservative members of the court normally in disagreement over death penalty issues found common ground not on the death penalty itself but on the issue of religious freedom and how the death penalty is carried out. Dunham said most state execution protocols, which set who is present in the death chamber, do not mention spiritual advisers. For most of the modern history of the U.S. death penalty since the 1970s, spiritual advisers have not been present in execution chambers, he said. The Biden administration is still weighing how it will proceed in death penalty cases.

The lethal injection of Willie B. Smith III was called off Thursday, Feb. 11, 2021, when the U.S. Supreme Court maintained an injunction. The state prison system said the execution would not proceed given the ruling. “Alabama has not carried its burden of showing that the exclusion of all clergy members from the execution chamber is necessary to ensure prison security. Smith had sought to allow his spiritual adviser, Pastor Robert Wiley, in the execution chamber, something the state does not allow. In the past, Alabama routinely put a Christian prison chaplain, who was employed by the state, in the execution chamber to pray with an inmate if requested.

The Supreme Court is telling California that it can't bar indoor church services because of the coronavirus pandemic, but it can keep for now a ban on singing and chanting indoors. The high court said that for now, California can't ban indoor worship as it had in almost all of the state because virus cases are high. The justices also declined to stop California from enforcing a ban put in place last summer on indoor singing and chanting. Gorsuch and Justice Clarence Thomas would have kept California from enforcing its singing ban. The justices said the churches who sued can submit new evidence to a lower court that the singing ban is not being applied generally.

FILE - In this Nov. 5, 2020, file photo the Supreme Court is seen in Washington. The pending Supreme Court case on the fate of the Affordable Care Act could give the Biden administration its first opportunity to chart a new course in front of the justices. Scott Applewhite, File)WASHINGTON – The pending Supreme Court case on the fate of the Affordable Care Act could give the Biden administration its first opportunity to chart a new course in front of the justices. “The Biden administration is going to have to realize they’re making arguments to a reasonably conservative court,” he said. In one case, Trump was unhappy with the money Congress allotted for construction of a wall along the Mexican border.

(AP Photo/Alan Fram)WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday seemed cautious about siding with oil and gas companies in a case involving global warming. The case the court was hearing is not about whether the companies can be held responsible for harms resulting from global warming. Instead, it’s an important preliminary fight that could help determine whether similar global warming cases ultimately wind up being argued in state court or federal court, which is the companies' preference. A win for the oil and gas companies would make it easier for defendants to challenge an order sending a case from federal court back to state court. The oil companies attempted to have the case transferred to federal court, but a federal district court sent the case back to state court.

(AP Photo/Evan Vucci)WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Tuesday wrestled with whether to revive a lawsuit brought by a Georgia college student who sued school officials after being prevented from distributing Christian literature on campus. The school, Georgia Gwinnett College, has since changed its policies and the student has graduated. A lower court dismissed the case as moot and an appeals court agreed, but the student, Chike Uzuegbunam, is urging the justices to allow the case to move forward. He's seeking just $1 and says he wants the Lawrenceville, Georgia, school to be held accountable for its past policies. Uzuegbunam and another student, Joseph Bradford, sued, and the college changed its policy in 2017.

The Supreme Court has dismissed as premature a challenge to President Donald Trump's plan to exclude people living in the country illegally from the population count used to allot states seats in the House of Representatives. But the courts decision Friday is not a final ruling on the matter and it's not clear whether Trump will receive final numbers from the Census Bureau before he leaves office next month. If the president still has not received final census numbers by the time Joe Biden takes office Jan. 20, Trump's plan will be effectively dead because Biden is extremely unlikely to pursue it. The three liberal justices dissented, saying the effort to exclude people in the country from the population for divvying up House seats is unlawful. "This ruling does not authorize President Trump’s goal of excluding undocumented immigrants from the census count used to apportion the House of Representatives.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday agreed to review a court decision that the NCAA has said blurred “the line between student-athletes and professionals" by removing caps on education-related money certain football and basketball players can receive. The case will be argued in 2021 with a decision expected before the end of June. The panel upheld a lower court ruling barring the NCAA from capping education-related compensation and benefits for student-athletes in Division I football and basketball programs. In August, Justice Elena Kagan had denied the NCAA’s request to put lower court rulings in favor of the student-athletes on hold at least temporarily while the NCAA formally petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the case. The case was brought by former West Virginia football player Shawne Alston and others.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled in favor of a rural Colorado church that was challenging capacity limits instituted by Gov. High Plains Harvest Church sought to block the restrictions, arguing that the state's rules unlawfully targeted religion. The decision came after Colorado had already lifted the restrictions in response to a November Supreme Court ruling blocking similar rules in New York. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by fellow liberals Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor, dissented from the court's order. "But if 51 people were to meet to worship God in a small rural church in Ault, Colorado, they would do so at the risk of being fined and imprisoned," Arrington wrote.

The high court’s unsigned decisions did not rule that limits imposed by Colorado Gov. But they did throw out federal district court rulings that rejected challenges to the limits. The High Plains Harvest Church in the rural town of Ault in northern Colorado sued Polis, while a Catholic priest and a rabbi challenged the restrictions in New Jersey. Last month, the Supreme Court split 5-4 in holding that New York could not enforce certain limits on attendance at churches and synagogues. The high court subsequently ordered a new look at California worship service restrictions that had been challenged.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday struggled with whether to require new trials for potentially thousands of prisoners who were convicted by non-unanimous juries before the court barred the practice earlier this year. The high court ruled 6-3 in April that juries in state criminal trials must be unanimous to convict a defendant. In striking down the practice, the court said Louisiana and Oregon had originally adopted their rules for racially discriminatory reasons. But the Supreme Court's decision affected only future cases and cases in which the defendants were still appealing their convictions when the high court ruled. But Justice Samuel Alito expressed skepticism that the court should make this decision retroactive.

I think, frankly, that they wanted the court to do that, but that’s not our job,” Roberts said. The Supreme Court could have heard the case before the election, but set arguments for a week after. Without the penalty, the law's mandate to have health insurance is unconstitutional, the GOP-led states argue. However, enrollment in the law’s insurance markets has stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. The case could also be rendered irrelevant if the new Congress were to restore a modest penalty for not buying health insurance.

Five Supreme Court justices who had twice preserved the Obama-era health care law remained on the bench and seemed unlikely votes to dismantle it. A court ruling invalidating the entire law would threaten coverage for more than 23 million people. It's their first time hearing a major case over the health law as justices, although Kavanaugh took part in the the first round of suits over it when he was a federal appeals court judge. Enrollment in the law's insurance markets stayed relatively stable at more than 11 million people, even after the effective date of the penalty’s elimination in 2019. The case could also be rendered irrelevant if the new Congress were to restore a modest penalty for not buying health insurance.

That’s how the Supreme Court has answered questions in recent days about an extended timeline for receiving and counting ballots in those states. At first blush, the difference in the outcomes at the Supreme Court seems odd because the high court typically takes up issues to harmonize the rules across the country. Conservative justices who hold a majority on the Supreme Court object to what they see as intrusions by federal judges who order last-minute changes to state election rules, even in the middle of the coronavirus pandemic. Last week, four conservative justices would have put on hold a Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling allowing three additional days to receive and count mailed ballots. The Supreme Court has never cited Bush v. Gore in an opinion of the court.

A tweet by the Girl Scouts congratulating new Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett drew such outrage from Barrett’s critics that the youth organization swiftly deleted it – only to draw a new backlash from Barrett’s supporters. As the online criticism mounted, the Girl Scouts deleted their original tweet and posted a new statement. Girl Scouts of the USA is a nonpolitical, nonpartisan organization. There was no immediate reply from the Girl Scouts' media spokeswoman to an Associated Press request for additional comment and for any details on whether Barrett had been in the Girl Scouts. The Girl Scouts, along with the Boy Scouts of America and other youth organizations, have experienced membership declines in recent years, for reasons ranging from busy family schedules to the lure of online games and social media.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on Wednesday put on hold a lower court order that would have permitted curbside voting in Alabama in November. As is typical when the Supreme Court acts on an emergency basis, the justices in the majority did not explain their decision. “It does not require all counties to adopt curbside voting; it simply gives prepared counties the option to do so. It was unclear how many counties would offer curbside voting if it was allowed, but Ross said several counties had expressed interest. The Supreme Court has weighed in on curbside voting in Alabama before, at an earlier stage of the case.

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court might prefer to avoid politics, but politics has a way of finding the court. And Trump is hoping to have his third high court nominee, Judge Amy Coney Barrett, installed before Election Day. A federal court ordered ballots to be counted if received by Nov. 6, unless there is evidence they were mailed after Election Day. The next day, Justice Stephen Breyer rejected a Republican bid to stop the use of ranked-choice voting in Maine. On an abortion-related issue, the court found a way Thursday to put off any definitive action for the time being.

WASHINGTON – A Supreme Court that has been friendly to religious interests took up a case Tuesday involving Muslim men who claim their religious rights were violated when they were placed on the government’s no-fly list because they refused to serve as FBI informants. The three foreign-born men claim in the lawsuit that their religious convictions led them to rebuff agents who wanted them to inform on people in their Muslim communities. The men claim the agents then placed or kept them on the list of people prevented from flying because they are considered a threat. Questions from the court did not even touch on the men’s Islamic faith or the actions of federal officials. Instead, the justices focused, in an often technical way, on the wording of the federal law to figure out if the lawsuit could proceed.

But what happens if a candidate for president dies before Election Day? Instead, they are voting for slates of electors who will pick the president and vice president as members of the Electoral College. In modern U.S. elections, the meeting of the Electoral College is essentially a ceremonial confirmation of the choice made by voters. If no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes, the House chooses the president and the Senate chooses the vice president, in a process spelled out in the Constitution. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won a a plurality of the popular vote and the most Electoral College votes.

FILE PHOTO: New Jersey Governor Chris Christie speaks at the University of New Hampshire at Manchester, in Manchester, New Hampshire, May 12, 2015. The Supreme Court ruled that their actions did not fit within the definition of fraud under federal law. Baroni started serving his 18-month sentence but was released when the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year. The ruling marks the latest instance in which the Supreme Court hemmed in prosecutors in corruption cases involving political figures. Wildstein, the accused Bridgegate mastermind, was sentenced to probation in 2017 after pleading guilty and cooperating with prosecutors.

Chris Christie (L) and Bill Baroni, former deputy executive director of The Port Authority of New York and New JerseyThe Supreme Court on Thursday reversed the fraud convictions of two aides to former New Jersey Gov. Christie was dropped as the head of President Donald Trump's White House transition team in 2016 shortly after Kelly and Baroni were convicted. Trump celebrated the decision on Twitter, writing that "a complete and total exoneration (with a 9-0 vote by the U.S. Supreme Court) on the Obama DOJ Scam referred to as 'Bridgegate.'" Baroni was sentenced to 18 months in prison, and actually began serving that term in 2019, before being released after the Supreme Court said it would take Kelly's appeal. He was not a party to the Supreme Court case and pleaded guilty in 2015.

FILE PHOTO: The U.S. Supreme Court is seen in Washington, U.S., June 11, 2018. The justices affirmed a 2018 decision by the Kansas Supreme Court upholding the conviction of the man at the center of the case, James Kraig Kahler. Writing in dissent, liberal Justice Stephen Breyer said he agreed with the majority that states have broad leeway in implementing the insanity defense. The state maintains that it has redefined, not abolished, the insanity defense, and that evidence of insanity is still used to determine intent. The state further told the Supreme Court that even if the Constitution required an insanity test, Kahler was not actually insane.

Supreme Court justices heard a major racial bias case Wednesday and struggled over whether to make it harder or easier for a black entrepreneur to sue and win a discrimination suit under the nations oldest civil rights law. That standard, if adopted, would make it far harder for civil rights plaintiffs to bring a discrimination lawsuit. In 2015, Allen sued Comcast and Charter Communications, alleging their refusal to carry his channels was due to racial bias. Circuit Court of Appeals revived both suits and cited the words of the Civil Rights Act of 1866. But to win his suit, he agreed, Allen would have show that he was turned down because of racial discrimination.

Ron DeSantis and Attorney General Ashley Moody in Miami federal court. "South Miami believes that attempts to comply with SB 168 will lead to liability in damage lawsuits by residents and visitors against South Miami or SMPD." The suit explicitly states that SB 168 breaks the precedent set by the 2012 Arizona v. United States Supreme Court decision. "Florida's attempt to regulate immigration through SB 168 adversely impacts the United States' ability to conduct foreign relations with other countries," the suit states. Those treaties, ratified by the United States, require the U.S. government to combat racial profiling.

REUTERS/Chris KeaneThe justices, in a 5-4 decision with the courts conservative in the majority and liberals in dissent, ruled in a decision with nationwide implications that judges do not have the ability to curb the practice known as partisan gerrymandering. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, Roberts wrote. The justices in June 2018 failed to issue definitive rulings on partisan gerrymandering in two cases - this same one from Maryland and another involving a Republican-drawn electoral map in Wisconsin. Critics have said partisan gerrymandering, when taken to extremes, warps democracy by intentionally diluting the power of some voters and the electability candidates they support. While the Supreme Court has ruled against gerrymandering intended to harm the electoral clout of racial minorities, it has never curbed gerrymandering carried out purely for partisan advantage.

"Auer deference retains an important role in construing agency regulations," wrote Justice Elena Kagan, who delivered the opinion of the court. The precedent is known as "Auer deference," after the 1997 case Auer v. Robbins. Since Auer, the Supreme Court has held that courts should defer to agencies' interpretations of their own rules if those rules are ambiguous. But the court's conservatives, who concurred with Kagan's judgment but signed onto separate opinions explaining their reasoning, suggested Auer was unwise. The court's decision to retain Auer in part because it is a settled precedent is significant for reasons beyond agency deference.