Supreme Court Quietly Changes Rulings After Releasing Them; Refuses To Reveal What Those Changes Are

from the supreme-court-needs-a-public-diff dept

Last month, Justice Scalia made a misstep in a dissent in a case involving the E.P.A. Under the heading “Plus ça Change: E.P.A.’s Continuing Quest for Cost-Benefit Authority,” he criticized the agency for seeking such authority in a 2001 case. But he got its position backward. Worse, he was the author of the majority opinion in the 2001 decision. Law professors pointed out the mistake, and Justice Scalia quickly altered his opinion, revising the text and substituting a bland heading: “Our Precedent.”

A sentence in a 2003 concurrence from Justice O’Connor in a gay rights decision, Lawrence v. Texas, has been deleted from the official record. She had said Justice Scalia “apparently agrees” that a Texas law making gay sex a crime could not be reconciled with the court’s equal protection principles. Lower court judges debated the statement, and law professors used it in teaching the case. The statement continues to appear in Internet archives like Findlaw and Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. But it has vanished from the official version published in 2006 and from the one available on Lexis, a legal database.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community. Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis. While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

The NY Times has a fascinating article about how the Supreme Court often changes rulings long after they've been released, sometimes changing them significantly, but rarely doing anything to alert the public (or lawyers and legal scholars) of those changes. The article is based on a forthcoming paper by Richard Lazarus on the (Non)Finality of Supreme Court Opinions . While many of the changes are small edits to fix errors, sometimes they can be fairly big deals. In some cases, the errors were so egregious that the change makes news:But, as the article notes, there are times when these changes slip by almost entirely unnoticed, even when they're considered rather important:In another case, the article notes that even the version of a ruling on the Supreme Court's own website is outdated.This is an easy problem for the Supreme Court to fix: they should make their change page open to the publicpost the diff whenever they make a change, so that anyone can quickly see how a change was made. But they don't do this. While the Supreme Courthave change pages that show all the revisions, they are blocked from public view, and only four private legal publishers are given access. There is simply no reason for this, and it again leads to a situation where we have private, secret law, rather than a public law. It's a dangerous and shameful practice, and one that the Supreme Court could easily end tomorrow. It should do so.

Filed Under: changes, diffs, laws, legal scholars, rulings, secrecy, supreme court, transparency