What’s next after Supreme Court curbs regulatory power: More focus on laws’ wording, less on their g
A widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling will sharply limit federal agencies’ power to interpret the laws that they execute…
A widely anticipated Supreme Court ruling will sharply limit federal agencies’ power to interpret the laws that they execute…
Disabled people are experts in using – and designing – assistive technologies. They have lessons to offer everyone about…
Corn has its roots in Mexico about 9,000 years ago.
A landmark settlement for student-athletes is raising questions that will take big-time college sports into uncharted territory,…
What happens if the highest court in the land loses legitimacy?
By putting financial pressure on white businesses – often in a highly organized way – Black civil rights leaders achieved…
Listing a violent extremist group as ‘terrorist’ makes it illegal for any American to offer the organization financial…
How does someone with power and fame walk away from it? It’s not easy, as these three examples from politics and sports…
In a major homelessness ruling, the Supreme Court holds that cities and municipalities can punish people for sleeping outside,…
Anti-camping laws are the centerpiece of the ‘hostile design’ strategies cities use to push the unhoused out of public…
Government prosecutors, ruled the Supreme Court, stretched the meaning of a law that’s been used to prosecute those alleged…
ICE detention facilities suffer from outdated systems, a lack of translation services – and a penchant for releasing ailing…
Research funding is down in recent years despite promises made with the CHIPS and Science Act.
The psychotropic allure of the ayahuasca plant for hundreds of thousands of non-Indigenous consciousness seekers is raising…
Science fiction and technological innovation feed off each other in an ongoing back-and-forth that can play out over decades.
Scholars of communication and politics assess a presidential debate with a clear loser, but no clear winner.
The Supreme Court conceded that it should not have taken up the case to begin with.
The company helped spur a public health crisis through its deceptive marketing and aggressive sales of prescription opioids.