Happy Sunday − and welcome to the best of The Conversation U.S. Here are a few of our recently published stories:

• Atlantic Ocean is headed for a tipping point − once melting glaciers shut down the Gulf Stream, we would see extreme climate change within decades, study shows
• Ads, food and gambling galore − 5 essential reads for the Super Bowl

Legal issues involving former President Donald Trump dominated the news last week. And our crack politics team was all over them, with timely articles that provided readers with context, perspective and analysis from experienced political and legal scholars. It was hardly a surprise that two of the stories readers gravitated to most last week were about the two separate court cases that made big headlines – one with negative implications for Trump, the other potentially more favorable.

The first was a unanimous ruling by a federal appeals court panel that Trump is not immune from prosecution for crimes committed while president. Claire Wofford, a political scientist at the College of Charleston, explained the implications of the ruling, both for the current cases against Trump and all presidents, past, present and future. The case is expected to be appealed to the Supreme Court, which may choose to intervene or let the appeals court ruling stand.

The high court was where the week’s other big Trump news took place. The justices heard oral arguments over the Colorado Supreme Court’s decision to remove Trump from the ballot in the state because it determined Trump engaged in an insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021. Ahead of the U.S. Supreme Court hearing, political scientists Jessica A. Schoenherr of the University of South Carolina and Jonathan M. King of West Virginia University wrote about what was at stake for the court, notably its legitimacy as a nonpartisan body.

And following the hearing, senior politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Notre Dame election law scholar Derek T. Muller to learn what he gleaned from the justices’ questions. In the interview, which was one of last week’s editor picks, Muller explained why he felt the justices were skeptical that a single state should decide for the whole nation whether Trump is eligible to be president.