Sunday, Adam Liptak had this interesting piece in the New York Times shining a light on a little-known practice of our nation’s highest court: corrections “after the fact” of the original released decision.
The late changes by the Justices do not change the outcomes of the decision — the winners and losers — but they do occasionally change the reasoning, which becomes the basis for decades following for other appeals, and as direction to the Courts of Appeals.
I have dealt with Liptak on our U.S. Supreme Court case (here), and on the COAST/Mark Miller “Tweets” case (here) and must say he is a brilliant writer. Liptak devotes his coverage exclusively to the Supreme Court and has a keen understanding of the law and the workings of the nation’s highest court.
