Explore the vast range of titles available.

Attorney General Merrick Garland testified in the House Judiciary Committee on June 4, as Republican members threatened to hold him in contempt.

Attorney General Merrick Garland announced on April 13 the arrest of Jack Teixeira, a member of the Massachusetts Air National Guard suspected of leaking top secret Pentagon documents.

Attorney General Merrick Garland said a special counsel probing President Biden's handling of classified documents will operate in an \"evenhanded\" manner.

The House of Representatives voted 216-207 on June 12 to hold Attorney General Merrick Garland in contempt of Congress for not turning over audiotapes of an interview that President Biden conducted with special counsel Robert K. Hur.

Attorney General Merrick Garland on Sept. 17 said that the Justice Department would work with local authorities to investigate the potential attempted assassination of former president Donald Trump.

Attorney General Merrick Garland defended FBI and Justice Department employees on Aug. 11 following an FBI search at Trump's Mar-a-Lago resort.

Contemporary US Supreme Court nominations are unavoidably and inevitably political. Although observers worry that political contestation over nominations undermines support for qualified nominees and threatens the Court's legitimacy, there is little empirical evidence to support these claims. The authors argue that political contestation over judicial nominations provides cues that shape the public's impressions about nominees and the Court and polarizes public opinion across partisan lines. Data from a conjoint experiment administered in the first days of the Trump presidency support this argument. Political rhetoric attributed to President Trump and Senate Democrats substantially polarized partisans’ views of nominees and evaluations of the Court's legitimacy, with Republicans (Democrats) expressing significantly more (less) favorable attitudes. Additional analyses suggest that contestation generates divergent partisan responses by affecting views about the nominee's impartiality. These findings challenge existing perspectives that depict attitudes toward the judiciary as resistant to partisan considerations and have important implications for the Court's legitimacy in a polarized era.

Attorney General Merrick Garland accused Texas-based software company RealPage of violating antitrust laws on Aug. 23.

Attorney General Merrick Garland spoke July 19 at the swearing in of Steve Dettelbach as director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

A fixed eighteen-year term for Supreme Court Justices has become a popular proposal with both academics and the general public as a possible solution to the countermajoritarian difficulty and as a means for depoliticizing the confirmation process. While scholars have extensively examined the potential benefits of term limits, the potential costs have been underexplored. We focus on one cost: the possible effects of term limits on doctrinal stability. Using seven statistical models that measure potential fluctuation in Supreme Court support for Roe v. Wade had the Court been operating under term limits since 1973, we explore the level of constitutional instability that a term-limit system would engender. Our models incorporate varying degrees of each new Justice's loyalty to the nominating president's ideology and deference to precedent, as well as account for the Senate's level of influence on the confirmation process under conditions including the elimination of the filibuster. The results suggest that term limits could fundamentally change the way that the law evolves and might well lead to a substantial loss in doctrinal stability.