History remembers Benedict Arnold with a distinction no one desires. His name has become synonymous with treason. Yet what makes Arnold's story so compelling is not simply that he betrayed America—it is that he...

In June 2023, the city council of Hamtramck, Michigan voted unanimously to ban the Pride flag from public property. Every council member was Muslim. The city had recently become the first in America to seat an all Muslim local government, a milestone progressive organizations had celebrated for years as proof of multicultural success. Then that same council told Pride organizers "No."

When the Supreme Court agreed to hear Watson v. Republican National Committee earlier this year, election integrity advocates had reason for cautious optimism. The case presented a clean legal question: does the federal law establishing Election Day require ballots to be received by that date, or merely cast? On Monday, in a 5-4 decision authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, the Court answered that question in a way few conservatives anticipated—and the consequences will extend well beyond Mississippi.

The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a ruling this week that should have been unnecessary to obtain in the first place. In a 2-1 decision handed down Tuesday, the court restored the Trump administration's authority to apply expedited removal to undocumented immigrants anywhere in the country, not merely near the border, reversing a lower-court injunction that had blocked the policy for months. The ruling is a legal victory, and it is the right outcome, but the fact that the federal government had to fight its way through multiple layers of litigation simply to enforce a statute that Congress passed in 1996 tells you a great deal about how far the judiciary has drifted from its proper role.