Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t

[TampaYankee]

Final Word on U.S. Law Isn’t: Supreme Court Keeps Editing

By ADAM LIPTAK

MAY 24, 2014

WASHINGTON — 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.

Unannounced changes have not reversed decisions outright, but they have withdrawn conclusions on significant points of law. They have also retreated from descriptions of common ground with other justices, as Justice Sandra Day O’Connor did in a major gay rights case.

The larger point, said Jeffrey L. Fisher, a law professor at Stanford, is that Supreme Court decisions are parsed by judges and scholars with exceptional care. “In Supreme Court opinions, every word matters,” he said. “When they’re changing the wording of opinions, they’re basically rewriting the law.”

Supreme Court opinions are often produced under intense time pressure because of the court’s self-imposed deadline, which generally calls for the announcement of decisions in all cases argued during the term before the justices leave for their summer break. In this term, 29 of the 70 cases argued since October remain to be decided in the next five weeks or so.

The court does warn readers that early versions of its decisions, available at the courthouse and on the court’s website, are works in progress. A small-print notice says that “this opinion is subject to formal revision before publication,” and it asks readers to notify the court of “any typographical or other formal errors.”

But aside from announcing the abstract proposition that revisions are possible, the court almost never notes when a change has been made, much less specifies what it was. And many changes do not seem merely typographical or formal.

Four legal publishers are granted access to “change pages” that show all revisions. Those documents are not made public, and the court refused to provide copies to The New York Times.

The final and authoritative versions of decisions, some published five years after they were announced, do not, moreover, always fully supplant the original ones. Otherwise reliable Internet resources and even the court’s own website at times still post older versions.

See the original article at: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/25/us/final-word-on-us-law-isnt-supreme-court-keeps-editing.html?src=twr&_r=0

[TampaYankee]

Isn't this just peachy-keen!! I guess stare decisis no longer means much either in the large or the small.

I have no real issue with changing errors of fact or even findings, but only if done in the open, in the full light of day, and the changes are signed on to by a majority of the Justices on public record.

Errors can and will be made and should be corrected but not in secret. If the SOTUS is embarrassed by publication of their mistakes then they should make fewer of them. They should not hand down law in the middle of the night or while shielded under a blanket. There ought to be a law!!

[RA1]

I wonder which was first, the Congressional Record allowing a member's utterings to be changed from "what he said" to what he meant or the above? Neither situation is innocuous. If not sunshine proceedings, at least sunshine published results. I realize it is anathema for pols and officials to actually stand up and say what they really mean but a healthy dose of that would be welcome.

Best regards,

RA1

[Guest Paragon]

I find it to be another example of the decline of American institutions. Who looks up to Congress for leadership? And the Supreme Court is so political. That umpire that got appointed- you know, the one who was only going to call balls and strikes- has been undermining campaign finance regulations and supporting the conservative position at every turn. And now this. We can't depend on what they say. It could change any day depending on how the wind is blowing.

[TotallyOz]

I read the full article and I have to say that I am a bit surprised. I didn't think such "editing" occurred.

I love what Jimmy Carter said recently, "contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court runs the country."