Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Are Supreme Court opinions final? Apparently not so much.
Hotair ^ | 05/26/2014 | Jazz Shaw

Posted on 05/26/2014 4:37:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind

The question found in the title of this post seems self-evident, or so I’d have thought. In questions of constitutionality and the laws of the land, the Supreme Court has the final word. (At least unless and until a later court revises the position.) But Dr. Joyner examines a study from Adam Liptak at the Gray Lady which indicates that precisely how final their opinions are and particularly when they become final is a bit more fluid than one might think.

The Supreme Court has been quietly revising its decisions years after they were issued, altering the law of the land without public notice. The revisions include “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning,” said Richard J. Lazarus, a law professor at Harvard and the author of a new study examining the phenomenon.

The court can act quickly, as when Justice Antonin Scalia last month corrected an embarrassing error in a dissent in a case involving the Environmental Protection Agency.

But most changes are neither prompt nor publicized, and the court’s secretive editing process has led judges and law professors astray, causing them to rely on passages that were later scrubbed from the official record. The widening public access to online versions of the court’s decisions, some of which do not reflect the final wording, has made the longstanding problem more pronounced…

[T]he precise wording of opinions matters because they provide a guide to the legal reasoning behind the ruling. While some language is considered mere “dicta,” having no precedential value, text is quite often cited years—sometimes decades or even centuries—later as part of the argument for a case having nothing whatsoever to do with the specific controversy that brought the conflicting parties to court. Given the proliferation of opinions in various highly credible online fora, it only behooves the Court to ensure that people know which versions are authoritative and what language has been revised over time and is no longer operative.

There are two aspects to this question, one which seems completely reasonable and one which is problematic to the point of constituting a potential crisis in constitutional government, at least to my way of viewing it. The first is the questions of typographical errors and misdirected citations or incorrect names and case numbers of previous cases as precedent. Given the length of some of the decisions coming from the court and the number of them they wind up churning out at the end of a session, it’s completely understandable such errors could be released. Given time to review them thoroughly with an editorial eye, such things can be cleaned up before the decision is formally released into the United States Reports.

The second question is more troubling. Apparently, while not entirely turning a finding on its head, there have been a number of substantive errors in some of the slip and bench opinions which are initially published. Dr. Joyner’s partner, attorney Doug Mataconis notes this in a separate piece tackling the same question.

While it doesn’t appear that these revisions have ever actually resulted in substantive changes in the holding of an opinion, or in the substance of the legal argument made in a majority, concurring, or minority opinion, they still clearly go beyond merely correcting typos and proofreading errors. The Scalia and Kagan cases, for example, involve the correction of rather obvious factual errors that somehow made it through the drafting phase. While that’s not necessarily objectionable, the fact that it was done with little notice does raise concerns. The O’Connor and Ginsburg case raise different questions. In both of those cases, the changes appear to make substantive changes in the arguments that both Justices made, and while they didn’t change the conclusions they reached, they were more than mere corrections of a typo.

If you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop, the above objections are not the end of the problem nor really the serious part. Even if the errors are substantial, assuming they are found and edited before final entry into the United States Reports, there would be little problem aside from some potential short term confusion. But that’s not the case. I was discussing this issue with Joyner on Twitter today and he confirmed that these sometimes erroneous bench and slip opinions can and are cited as precedent in other cases. And even after the SCOTUS decision is amended to correct the error, a corresponding correction is generally not made in the lower court decisions which rely on them.

@DrJJoyner That was my next question. So other courts have cited portions of decisions which later changed?

— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) May 26, 2014

@JazzShaw Sure. New SCOTUS decisions get immediately incorporated into briefs and rulings and then become live secondary sources.

— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) May 26, 2014

@DrJJoyner And those depending decisions aren't later modified to reflect the changes in the original citation?

— Jazz Shaw (@JazzShaw) May 26, 2014

@JazzShaw I doubt it. More often than not, they wouldn't realize the error. Remember, the rulings aren't changing here, just the explanation

— James Joyner (@DrJJoyner) May 26, 2014

Maybe this hasn’t really caused a substantive error in appellate courts. But on the other hand, maybe it has. How would we know without someone doing a detailed examination of each version of every SCOTUS decision which was modified and then searching for the unedited text in every lower court decision which cited it? And who precisely is going to embark on a task like that?

This may be nothing, but it certainly sounds disturbing.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: scotus; supremecourt

1 posted on 05/26/2014 4:37:06 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Supreme Court Justices are your run-of-the-mill idiot lawyers. When they announce their decisions with all the pomp and circumstance surrounding them, greater legal minds tear them a new one. Going back to reach the same erroneous conclusion with a different perspective is an attempt to justify their appointment. These dudes and dudettes were not chosen for their brains. (or looks).


2 posted on 05/26/2014 4:51:39 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I didn't know you could revise a charade.


3 posted on 05/26/2014 4:53:47 PM PDT by nathanbedford ("Attack, repeat, attack!" Bull Halsey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Can Roberts reverse his misguided Husseincare vote?


4 posted on 05/26/2014 4:58:57 PM PDT by Libloather (Embrace the suck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck

Homosexual marriage cases are cases decided incorrectly.

Here’s why:

1.. under traditional marriage laws, everyone is treated equally. A homosexual man may not want to marry a woman, but he has the same right to do so that anyone else has. So there is no equal protection argument, even though equal protection is a key element in these cases.

2.. This whole area of sexual orientation/sexual identity are not protected classes under federal civil rights laws. Meaning that judges are making a major error every time they say not allowing homosexual marriage is a civil rights violation against homosexuals.

3. Judges are changing the definition of a legal term and legal concept, in this case changing the definition of marriage, in order to rule the way they are ruling. I would love to know if there is any precedent for changing the meaning of a legal term.

It’s obvious that these judges are trying to bend over backwards to prove how liberal they are. There’s no way for them to arrive at their conclusions, that we must allow homosexual marriage, without invoking clearly illogical and ill defined legal reasoning.


5 posted on 05/26/2014 5:00:33 PM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (et)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Editing of errors? Hopefully a relatively minor issue.

Let's go directly to repeal. Start with Lawrence v. Texas and Roe v. Wade.
6 posted on 05/26/2014 5:01:56 PM PDT by Engraved-on-His-hands (Conservative 2016!! The Dole, H.W. Bush, McCain, Romney experiment has failed.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Duh, Dred Scott.


7 posted on 05/26/2014 5:03:28 PM PDT by facedown (Armed in the Heartland)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather

RE: Can Roberts reverse his misguided Husseincare vote?

Not immediately. But he can redeem himself slowly. He can start by ruling in favor of the Sisters of the Poor and Hobby Lobby.


8 posted on 05/26/2014 5:04:10 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I like to get liberals on this one, because they state that Roe v. Wade has been determined to be constitutional by the US Supreme Court and therefore it can’t be changed. Plessy v. Ferguson was argued before the US Supreme Court in 1896 and it was affirmed that “separate but equal” is constitutional. However, that decision was overturned (repudiated) by the US Supreme Court in 1954 that “separate but equal” is not constitutional.
9 posted on 05/26/2014 5:05:52 PM PDT by Traveler59 ( Truth is a journey, not a destination.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Libloather
Can Roberts reverse his misguided Husseincare vote?

And have to return all that money?

10 posted on 05/26/2014 5:06:31 PM PDT by COBOL2Java (I'm a Christian, pro-life, pro-gun, Reaganite. The GOP hates me. Why should I vote for them?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; cripplecreek; GraceG
Many of our Problems can be traced back to the Supreme Court.

Hell the Supreme Court's Dredd v. Scott was a major Catalyst for the Civil War.

Lets not forget Buck v. Bell

The sterilization of anyone deemed defective by the state.

I don't know why anyone would put any faith in the courts to save us.

They have been broken since Andrew Jackson.

11 posted on 05/26/2014 5:09:53 PM PDT by KC_Lion (Build the America you want to live in at your address, and keep looking up.- Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
Supreme Court Justices are your run-of-the-mill idiot lawyers. When they announce their decisions with all the pomp and circumstance surrounding them, greater legal minds tear them a new one. Going back to reach the same erroneous conclusion with a different perspective is an attempt to justify their appointment. These dudes and dudettes were not chosen for their brains. (or looks).

What's worse is that many of their opinions are written in large part by their clerks, people recently just out of law school, good law schools, but not that experienced.

12 posted on 05/26/2014 5:24:37 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker
What's worse is that many of their opinions are written in large part by their clerks, people recently just out of law school, good law schools, but not that experienced.

True but the clerks are only writing justifications and not the constitutional opinions. Justice: "This is my decision. Make it sound good."

13 posted on 05/26/2014 5:36:24 PM PDT by Starstruck (If my reply offends, you probably don't understand sarcasm or criticism...or do.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Swordmaker

And anyone who thinks the justices actually decide what cases are heard is out of touch with reality. Most cases are assigned to a clerk, who may or may not actually read your case, and writes a one-page summary. If you are not represented by a high-profile lawyer, you are pretty much screwed even if you suffered a great injustice.


14 posted on 05/26/2014 5:36:31 PM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Starstruck
True but the clerks are only writing justifications and not the constitutional opinions. Justice: "This is my decision. Make it sound good."

You got it. . .

15 posted on 05/26/2014 5:49:37 PM PDT by Swordmaker (This tag line is a Microsoft insult free zone... but if the insults to Mac users continue...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
The Founding States never intended for Supreme Court case opinions to be final. That is why the Founders made the Constitution amendable. In fact, here is what Thomas Jefferson wrote about the Constitution's Article V.
"If the two departments [Federal and State] should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide ultimately between them? In cases of little importance or urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground; but if it can neither be avoided not compromised, a convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may think best." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.

More specifically, when state lawmakers actually studied the Constitution that they swear to defend, they knew that they could overturn unpopular Supreme Court case decisions by exercising the unique, Article V power of the states to ratify proposed new amendments to the Constitution.

In fact, the 11th, 16th and 19th Amendments are examples of the states amending the Constitution in response to unpopular Supreme Court case decisions.

The gist of the Constitution's Article V can easily be remembered with the following two rules.

  1. The states are always right.

  2. When the states are wrong, see Rule #1.

The problem is that the corrupt federal government doesn't want low information voters to find out that the states uniquely control what the Constitution says. This is because voters would ultimately catch on to the constitutional reality that the states have absolute control over the constitutionally limited power federal government, not vice versa as many citizens have been indoctrinated to wrongly think. So the corrupt media along with the corrupt feds keep alive the PC myth that Supreme Court opinions are the end of the road for interpreting the Constitution.

16 posted on 05/26/2014 5:59:29 PM PDT by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Amendment10

It was nice to read your reply. I wish Cliven Bundy had lawyers as good as you are.


17 posted on 05/26/2014 8:18:05 PM PDT by B4Ranch (Name your illness, do a Google & YouTube search with "hydrogen peroxide". Do it and be surprised.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; Lurking Libertarian; Perdogg; JDW11235; Clairity; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

18 posted on 05/26/2014 11:13:24 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan
And anyone who thinks the justices actually decide what cases are heard is out of touch with reality.

I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All nine justices meet on Fridays for a group conference to vote on which cases they will hear. They are alone in conference. No law clerks allowed. It takes four votes for a case to be accepted.

19 posted on 05/26/2014 11:23:50 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
In questions of constitutionality and the laws of the land, the Supreme Court has the final word.

A fallacy that is, more than almost anything else, destroying the republic.

20 posted on 05/27/2014 4:58:00 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All nine justices meet on Fridays for a group conference to vote on which cases they will hear. They are alone in conference. No law clerks allowed. It takes four votes for a case to be accepted.

Do the Supremes actually read the briefs in their entirety, or do they read the summaries the clerks have prepared? If the latter, the clerks, while not physically present, have a lot of influence on which cases are heard.

21 posted on 05/27/2014 5:25:11 AM PDT by PapaBear3625 (You don't notice it's a police state until the police come for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: PapaBear3625

We don’t know. The conferences are totally secret.

http://www.supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/how-the-court-work/the-justices-conference/


22 posted on 05/27/2014 6:48:13 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BuckeyeTexan
I don't know how you came to that conclusion. All nine justices meet on Fridays for a group conference to vote on which cases they will hear. They are alone in conference.

They vote on petitions, which in almost every case, they have not even read themselves.

23 posted on 05/27/2014 7:05:40 AM PDT by SeaHawkFan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Over 100 Supreme Court cases have reversed prior decisions. So yes, as should be well known, the Supreme Court can and does overrule previous decisions. It is far from rare.


24 posted on 05/27/2014 7:48:35 AM PDT by Mr Rogers (I sooooo miss America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeaHawkFan

Not according to former law clerks.


25 posted on 05/27/2014 8:05:58 AM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (There are those that break and bend. I'm the other kind. ~Steve Earle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I posted the NYT article. Did not see your thread. Sorry. http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3161631/posts?page=1


26 posted on 05/29/2014 8:17:11 PM PDT by PghBaldy (12/14 - 930am -rampage begins... 12/15 - 1030am - Obama's advance team scouts photo-op locations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

It is settled law when leftists say it is


27 posted on 05/29/2014 8:18:45 PM PDT by GeronL (Vote for Conservatives not for Republicans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson