Nina Totenberg

When Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg began her legal crusade, women were treated differently than men by law. By the time she first put on judicial robes she had already worked a judicial revolution.

Today the issues are both the same and different. At front and center is the question of sexual harassment.

Updated at 8 p.m. ET

The case before the U.S. Supreme Court Wednesday had a surprise plot twist. Jurors were told that the accused was guilty of a triple murder — but the lawyer making that statement was not the prosecutor; he was the defense attorney.

The question before the justices was whether that violated the client's constitutional right to counsel. Justices liberal and conservative signaled that they have a problem with a lawyer who disregards his client's express wishes by conceding the defendant's guilt.

Copyright 2018 NPR. To see more, visit http://www.npr.org/.

KELLY MCEVERS, HOST:

Updated at 4:53 p.m. ET

The U.S. Supreme Court appeared divided Wednesday over whether Ohio's so-called use-it-or-lose-it voter registration rule violates federal law.

Ohio, which has the most aggressive voter-purge system in the country, currently strikes voters from the registration rolls if they fail to vote in two consecutive elections — and if they fail to return a mailed address confirmation form.

They came by subway, and on foot. Two hundred forty middle and high school students from Washington, D.C., public schools. Destination: the federal courthouse at the foot of Capitol Hill. They were there to watch a re-enactment of a landmark Supreme Court case on a subject that is near and dear to their hearts — the First Amendment rights of students.

What they learned, among other things, was that history repeats itself, even in their young lives.

All eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy Tuesday at a riveting Supreme Court argument where the issue was whether a baker may refuse to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

At the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, the justices signaled they may be prepared to strike down the federal ban on sports betting.

Enacted 25 years ago, the law prohibits states from legalizing sports betting, except where it was already legal. That exemption applied to Nevada, Delaware, Montana, Nevada and Oregon.

But now, with estimates of illegal betting running at $150 billion annually, cash-starved states are getting itchy.

Every Supreme Court term there is at least one case that gets people's blood up. A case on which just about everyone has an opinion, often a ferocious opinion. That case comes before the justices Tuesday.

In the political world, conservatives often accuse liberals of being soft on crime. At the U.S. court, that's not how it goes. Case in point, at the high court on Wednesday, a majority of the justices across ideological lines indicated they may be willing to impose new limits on the government's ability to gain access to large amounts of information retained by private companies in the digital age.

Pages