In the SEC vs. Jarkesy ruling of 2024, the Supreme Court overturned the Securities and Exchange Commission's ability to seek civil penalties for securities fraud in-house, which significantly scaled back the agency's enforcement capabilities.

Watch former Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler's 'Eras Tour' for the agency's 90th anniversary, a look back on the pivotal moments in the agency's history.

The Supreme Court extended the ban on discriminatory jury strikes to include gender in 1994

In J.E.B. v. Alabama, the court ruled 6-3 that using peremptory challenges to exclude jurors based on sex violates the Equal Protection Clause, building on its 1986 Batson decision banning race-based strikes.

The Securities and Exchange Commission was created during the Great Depression to restore public trust in financial markets after the 1929 crash.

The Seventh Amendment guarantees the right to a jury trial in federal civil cases

Ratified in 1791, this amendment applies to cases where more than $20 is at stake—an amount that has never been adjusted for inflation.

The Supreme Court limited federal judges' power to issue nationwide injunctions in 2025

In a 2025 decision arising from litigation over a presidential order on birthright citizenship, the Supreme Court held that individual federal judges may not nationwide block executive policies—curbing the use of sweeping injunctions and reshaping how constitutional challenges proceed through the courts.

The Supreme Court curbed the EPA's power to regulate carbon emissions in 2022

In West Virginia v. EPA, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the EPA exceeded its authority by requiring industrywide carbon cuts. Chief Justice Roberts' opinion invoked the "major questions" doctrine, which limits the ability of federal agencies to act without explicit congressional approval.

After Bernie Madoff's nearly $65B Ponzi scheme was exposed, the Securities and Exchange Commission was widely criticized for being inattentive and overly lax for not having caught the fraud earlier.

Known as the 'Pecora Hearings,' the widely covered trials following the stock market crash of 1929 generated massive public outrage that forced Congress to impose stricter regulations on Wall Street.

A 1986 Supreme Court ruling prohibited race-based jury strikes, but racial imbalance in jury selection persists

Batson v. Kentucky banned prosecutors from excluding jurors on the basis of race, but critics say it backfired. Prosecutors often use race-neutral pretexts to remove potential jurors that judges rarely reject, and some courts have never found a violation of the ruling.

The vast majority of federal criminal cases never reach a jury.

In fiscal year 2022, nearly 90% of federal defendants pleaded guilty, and another 8% had their cases dismissed. This means just 2% went to trial at all, making a trial by jury a rare outcome in the modern federal court system.

The Supreme Court has greatly expanded executive power in recent years

In Trump v. United States, the court ruled that a former president enjoys absolute immunity for "official acts" in his constitutional core powers. In Trump v. CASA, Inc., the court limited federal courts' ability to block executive enforcement through nationwide injunctions—decisions that shifted power toward the executive branch.

A single 1803 Supreme Court case, Marbury v. Madison, gave courts the power to strike down acts of Congress.

Grand juries were once considered a formality, but that may no longer be the case

New York's former chief judge famously said a prosecutor could get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwich," showing how rarely a grand jury refused. However, recent cases in which prosecutors failed to secure an indictment during the second Trump administration are challenging that assumption.

All states did not require a unanimous jury verdict to convict until a 2020 Supreme Court case

In Ramos v. Louisiana, the court ruled that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts to convict in criminal cases, overturning laws in Louisiana and Oregon that had allowed convictions with only 10 of 12 jurors in agreement.

Read a breakdown of the different financial and banking regulatory bodies in the US, including the SEC.

In 2018, the Supreme Court sided with American Express in a case that significantly changed antitrust regulation.

The US Department of Justice sued Visa, Mastercard, and American Express in 2010 over alleged anticompetitive contracts with merchants. While Visa and Mastercard settled out of court, American Express went to trial and had its case taken all the way up to the Supreme Court—which ruled that both sides of a transaction business must be analyzed to determine a monopoly.

Courts referee federalism disputes between Congress and the states

Modern federalism is primarily worked out through litigation. The Supreme Court decides disputes in written opinions that explain when federal law preempts state authority, how far Congress's powers extend, and when states may resist.

A 2013 Supreme Court case weakened federal oversight of redistricting

In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court struck down the Voting Rights Act's preclearance formula, reducing federal oversight of voting laws—including redistricting—and allowing changes to take effect without prior approval.

A 1954 Supreme Court ruling helped quiz shows avoid regulation

When the Federal Communications Committee attempted to rein in giveaway shows, the Supreme Court ruled that quiz shows were not a form of gambling because contestants did not have to risk anything to participate. Some believe that the ruling prevented proper oversight of the industry as it became more popular.

A landmark hedge fund court case once reshaped high finance

Hedge fund traders tied to insider trading by probing prosecutors are relatively rare. When billionaire hedge fund legend Steve Cohen, founder of SAC Capital, pleaded guilty to trading on inside information, Wall Street trembled. The outcome of the case remains a cautionary tale for traders today.

Grand juries investigate crimes and decide whether the government has enough evidence to charge someone

Unlike trial juries, which determine guilt, grand juries decide whether there is probable cause to bring charges at all. If they find enough evidence, they issue a formal indictment. Federal grand juries are enshrined in the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution.

The 1948 Supreme Court ruling was overturned in 2020

In 2020, US District Court Judge Analisa Torres overturned the 1948 Supreme Court ruling that broke up the studio system—effectively allowing the film industry to become vertically integrated once again—with companies like Amazon and Disney taking advantage of the relaxed regulations.

The Supreme Court ruled in February 2026 that Trump's emergency tariff powers didn't extend to imposing tariffs

In a 6-3 decision, the court held that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act—a 1977 law granting the president authority to regulate commerce during national emergencies—does not authorise the president to unilaterally impose tariffs, a power the Constitution reserves to Congress.

A court designed to be the least powerful branch of government became one of the most influential institutions in America.

Explore jury nullification, the little-known power that lets jurors ignore the law and acquit anyway

When jurors disagree with a law, they can simply vote to acquit regardless of the evidence; however, this practice is rare, and the legal system actively discourages it. This podcast traces its history from a Quaker prayer meeting in London to the LA riots.

Court-packing is the attempt to change the number of Supreme Court justices to shift the balance

Because the Constitution leaves the court's size to Congress, presidents have periodically sought to expand or reshape it. This explainer examines past efforts—including Franklin D. Roosevelt's failed 1937 plan—and why court-packing remains so controversial.

John Marshall advanced federal supremacy and judicial review

Marshall's jurisprudence emphasized that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, enforceable by an independent judiciary. Through his court's decisions, he affirmed judicial review, broad implied powers for Congress, and federal authority to override conflicting state laws.

Tribal courts handle justice on reservations, but face strict limits on whom they can prosecute

Reservation-based courts handle civil and criminal cases, but federal law sharply limits their authority over non-tribal members. As a result, non-Native individuals who commit crimes on reservations often fall outside tribal jurisdiction, creating potential gaps in accountability.

Explore state-level data on juries.

Marshall used deft political maneuvering to increase the court's power in Marbury v. Madison

This podcast explores how Chief Justice John Marshall avoided a direct clash with President Jefferson by denying William Marbury his commission—while simultaneously declaring that courts can strike down unconstitutional laws—cementing judicial review, and expanding the Supreme Court's authority.

Hikma v. Amarin was a case heard by the US Supreme Court in 2026 with implications for generic drug prices.

In the US, any court can rule on constitutionality—unlike in most other countries

In the American system, known as diffuse judicial review, federal and state courts at every level may assess whether laws comply with the Constitution, and their decisions are ultimately reviewable by the Supreme Court. Many other democracies, by contrast, reserve constitutional review to specialized constitutional courts.

Passed in 2010 in the fallout of the Great Recession, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was the most significant financial reform since the Great Depression.

Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer established the framework courts use to evaluate presidential war powers

When Truman seized US steel mills during the Korean War, the Supreme Court ruled that he had overstepped his authority. Justice Jackson's concurring opinion held that presidential power is strongest when Congress authorizes action, uncertain when Congress is silent, and weakest when Congress explicitly refuses authorization.

Annuities are regulated at the state level

However, certain types of annuities, like indexed annuities, are also nationally regulated by the SEC and the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority to protect investors.

Explore the nearly 1,000 laws, regulations, and provisions the court has held unconstitutional since Marbury v. Madison

Over more than two centuries, the Supreme Court has struck down nearly 1,000 federal, state, and local measures—exercising its authority to invalidate laws that conflict with the Constitution and shaping civil rights, the separation of powers, and the scope of government authority.

Carlin's 'Seven Words' led to a landmark Supreme Court ruling

The original recording of Carlin's bit aired on a New York radio station in 1973, leading to an FCC complaint. The case went up to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the FCC had the right to penalize broadcasters that aired obscene content during the daytime.

Marbury v. Madison established the Supreme Court's power of judicial review

The 1803 ruling empowered courts to strike down laws that violate the Constitution, permanently expanding the Supreme Court's authority and cementing its role as a coequal branch. This video explains the case and its lasting impact.