Our Policies

Our Guiding Philosophy:

SCOTUSblog aims to comprehensively cover the work of the Supreme Court.

SCOTUSblog is an impartial, journalistic entity.  We exist to provide readers with objective information.  We always clearly identify the limited commentary we publish.

We also attempt to avoid any appearance of bias or favoritism, including towards the clients of the attorneys who work on the blog.  If at all possible, we avoid publishing pieces favoring one side of a case; we will instead have pieces with contrasting views.

With respect to the cases of the firm with a relationship to the blog (Goldstein & Russell), our roles are disclosed in any discussion of that case.  The only exception is the very rare instances in which we have given the client an assurance that we will keep our role confidential.  In such an unusual and rare case, we take special care to ensure that our role does not affect the case's treatment on the blog.  If the firm works on a case, an attorney from the firm will not write about the case on the blog, except in the rare instance that we cannot find another author.  The previous practice of noting new Supreme Court filings by the lawyers who work on the blog and the clinics with which they are affiliated has been eliminated.

The blog never seeks to influence the Court's decision making.  We are aware that the blog is widely read within the Court, however.  So we have adopted policies intended to avoid any appearance of impropriety.  The decision whether to highlight any petition in a separate post is made exclusively by Lyle Denniston in his own discretion.  As noted, we no longer highlight our own briefs, including our own cert. petitions.  The Petitions to Watch feature now never comments on our own cases "“ separately listing them "“ to avoid any possibility that we would favor them, except in the rare case noted above in which we have undertaken a duty of confidentiality to the client.

Corrections and Updates:

On the blog, we note all substantive corrections to content (i.e., everything more severe than typos and minor rephrasings).  To do so, we post a bold "CORRECTION" notice at the bottom of the post describing the change.  All corrected posts will be linked on our “Corrections” page (under construction), with a description of the changes and the times they were made.

If you find an error, please report it to scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com.

Whenever we materially add to a post, we post an "UPDATE" label at the top of the post, with the time and date of the change.

Feedback:

Every email sent to feedback is reviewed by a SCOTUSblogger.  The feedback we have gotten to date has played a critical role in improving the blog, and we try whenever possible to reply to emails.  However, given our limited resources, we do not guarantee either responses or that ideas sent to us will be acted on.

Reproduction of Content:

SCOTUSblog holds an “Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives” license from Creative Commons.  That means that our content, and the content of our sister site SCOTUSwiki, may be reproduced and redistributed without our permission, but only if it is attributed to SCOTUSblog or SCOTUSwiki and neither used for profit nor modified.  If you are uncertain whether your use of blog content is permitted under this license, please contact scotusblog.feedback@gmail.com.