Editorial Policies

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

We are dedicated to providing readers with objective information. For that reason, we always clearly identify the commentary we publish.

We do our best to avoid any appearance of bias or favoritism, including toward the clients of attorneys who contribute to the site.

If at all possible, we do not publish pieces favoring just one side of a case; we instead have pieces with contrasting views.

SCOTUSblog provides comprehensive coverage of cases heard on the merits at the Supreme Court and all significant petitions for certiorari. However, to ensure that there are no actual or apparent conflicts of interest or factors that could diminish SCOTUSblog’s editorial independence, the following rule applies:

• No one shall have any involvement in reporting or commenting on any case in which their firm or employers has been paid to play any role, other than a submission that does not in any respect advocate for any outcome in the case.

The policy of not noting new Supreme Court filings by lawyers who contribute to the site and the clinics with which they are affiliated is long established at SCOTUSblog and remains in effect.

We are aware that SCOTUSblog is widely read within the court, but it never seeks to influence the court’s decision-making.

Corrections and updates:

On SCOTUSblog, we note all substantive corrections to content (i.e., everything more significant than typos and minor rephrasings). To do so, we add “(Corrected)” to the title of the post and, if a substantive correction, state what was changed.

If you find an error, please report it to [email protected].

Whenever we make a material addition to a post, we add “(Updated)” to the title of the post and note the time and date of the change.

Feedback:

Every email sent to feedback is reviewed by a member of SCOTUSblog’s staff. 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 we will act on ideas sent to us.

Reproduction of content:

Until SCOTUSblog’s acquisition by The Dispatch in April 2025, the blog’s content was published under a Creative Commons license allowing non-commercial use. That license remains in effect for past content, and those uses will continue to be honored. Going forward, however, all SCOTUSblog content falls under The Dispatch’s copyright. Any future use will require permission from The Dispatch. If you’re interested in licensing our content for research, educational, or commercial use, please reach out to [email protected].