The high court was highly skeptical that the difference between false and misleading would overturn a Chicago man’s conviction, but some of the justices seemed open to allowing the opportunity.

Supreme Court justices sometimes have a say over the fate of administration policies. Read more at straitstimes.com.

The justice spoke to President-elect Donald Trump on the phone hours before Trump asked the Supreme Court to stop his sentencing.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh brought up past examples of the U.S. blocking broadcasting companies from having ties to foreign governments and brought up the government’s concerns about TikTok collecting data on U.S. users, which he said “seems like a huge concern for the future of the country.”

Democrats want you to believe that the U.S. Supreme Court is there to do whatever Donald Trump wants. Justice Barrett proves that's not the case.

Donald Trump was sentenced Friday morning in New York for a criminal fraud conviction decided last May despite months of legal maneuvers aimed at forestalling the hearing and an unsuccessful, last-minute request to the Supreme Court to intervene.

The Supreme Court on Tuesday grappled with the case of Patrick Daley Thompson, a former Chicago alderman and member of Chicago’s most storied political dynasty. Thompson served four months in a federal prison for making false statements to bank regulators about loans he took out and did not repay.

Judge Juan Merchan has signaled his intention to sentence Trump to an " unconditional discharge " -- allowing Trump to avoid prison, fines or probation -- out of respect for the principle of presidential immunity, which takes effect on Jan. 20 once Trump becomes president.

The Supreme Court appeared to favor the government's national security claims over TikTok's 1st Amendment argument.

As the justices took up a case about age verification for online adult content, they struggled to wrap their heads around the state of the industry itself

The Supreme Court on Tuesday signaled it may send a Chicago political scion’s appeal of his conviction for lying to regulators back to a lower court to flesh out the difference between false and misleading statements.