Blog — Supreme Court
D.C. attorney David Zvenyach just made it much harder for the U.S. Supreme Court to secretly revise its opinions. On June 2nd, the lawyer and coder launched @SCOTUS_servo, a Twitter account that alerts followers when the Court edits its decisions.
The inspiration for the Twitter account may have come from Justice Antonin Scalia, whose infamous April 2014 dissent in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation mischaracterized a 2001 Court opinion Scalia himself had written. Within days of Scalia’s well-publicized error, the Court quietly edited his dissent, erasing the mistake from the public record. According to a new study by Harvard professor Richard Lazarus, such belated revisions are by no means uncommon. Even in the Internet era, no Supreme Court decision is considered final until its publication in the “printed bound volumes” of the U.S. Reports, the official record of the Court’s rulings. Publication in the U.S. Reports can take years; during that often lengthy time, justices may revise their opinions, even after a decision's “preliminary publication.”
The Supreme Court, Professor Lazarus explains, not only revises typos—it makes “truly substantive changes in factual statements and legal reasoning.” In 2006, for example, a sentence from Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in Lawrence v. Texas (2003), a seminal gay rights case, disappeared from public record. O’Connor had said Justice Scalia agreed a Texas anti-sodomy law violated the Court’s equal protection principles. Deleting the sentence invalidated years of legal scholarship and debate over its meaning.
Often, the public does not know when the Court changes an opinion. As the New York Times explains, the Court “almost never notes when a change has been made, much less specifies what it was.” Only four publishers have direct access to the Court’s revisions. Until @SCOTUS_servo, the public could only learn about changes through meticulous comparison of original decisions to those published in the U.S. Reports. The surreptitious scrubbing creates controversy in the legal community, which frequently cites the unrevised “slip opinions” the Court issues prior to official publication.
@SCOTUS_servo solves this problem. The Twitter account, as Mr. Zvenyach explains, crawls through electronic copies of decisions posted in the Supreme Court’s website. Whenever the program detects a change in a decision’s text, it alerts @SCOTUS_servo followers. Mr. Zvenyach recently partnered with civic coder Dr. Josh Tauberer, who generates images of altered decisions with the revisions highlighted in red.
Ideally, the Court would provide notice to the public when it changes its opinions. It should also publish the opinions in a format easy for computers to read, not just PDFs, which would make revisions more easily identifiable.
@SCOTUS_servo demonstrates the power of code in making government more transparent. Let's hope the Court catches up.
More Blog Posts
CREW will be hosting a panel of money-in-politics experts to discuss political activity by tax exempt groups, whether the First Amendment limits political activity, and much more. Read More ›
It appears that campaign contributors now have yet another way to wield influence without leaving many fingerprints. Read More ›
A complex money laundering scheme to fund political activities without disclosing the source of the funds reveals several important facts about the current state of dark money and campaign finance laws. Read More ›
October 30, 2013 | 501c Groups, Campaign Finance Reform, Elections, Financial, Disclosure, Organizations, American Future Fund, Americans for Job Security, States, California, Supreme Court, Citizens United decision, McCutcheon v. FEC, Koch Brothers
Aggregate limits are at risk as the Supreme Court prepares to hear oral arguments in McCutcheon v. FEC, and the consequences could be just as disastrous as those following the Citizens United decision. Read More ›
There are many things wrong with a high-level government official lying to Congress, but at its most basic such lies prevent Congress from doing its constitutionally assigned job of overseeing the executive branch. Read More ›
July 30, 2013 | Congress, Congressional Testimony, Federal Agencies, National Security Agency (NSA), Organizations, Amnesty International, Supreme Court, Transparency, James Clapper, Senate Members, Ron Wyden
In a predictably 5-to-4 opinion, Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, declared DOMA an unconstitutional violation of equal protection guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment Read More ›