Jekyll2023-02-21T11:09:17-08:00https://lonedissent.org/feed.xmlLone DissentAn Exercise in Supreme ObstinacySupreme Court Opinion Announcements2019-03-17T00:00:00-07:002019-03-17T00:00:00-07:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/03/supreme-court-opinion-announcements<p>Up until March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court’s list of transcripts for the
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/archived_transcripts/1973">1973 Term</a>
included the following transcripts from July 1974:</p>
<p><a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/archived_transcripts/1973"><img src="/assets/images/scotus/SCOTUS_October_Term_1973_July_1974.png" alt="Supreme Court Transcripts - October 1973 Term" /></a></p>
<p>However, if you visit their <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/archived_transcripts/1973">website</a> <em>now</em>,
you will no longer find the July 1974 transcript for <em>Milliken v. Bradley</em>.
This is unfortunate, because it was a unique document: a transcript of the Court’s July 25 opinion
announcement, along with <em>two</em> dissents from the bench, rather than the February 27 <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1973/73-434_73-435_73-436_02-27-1974.pdf">oral argument</a>.</p>
<p>This raises a number of interesting questions: why was this opinion announcement transcript created,
and why was it removed?</p>
<h2 id="what-are-opinion-announcements">What Are Opinion Announcements?</h2>
<p>On the day an opinion is released by the Court, a summary of the decision is typically
announced by the Justice who wrote the opinion, and they often use simplified language so
that the press and the public can more easily understand the legal reasoning.</p>
<p>Like oral arguments, opinion announcements are recorded, but unlike arguments, neither
audio recordings nor transcripts are released to the public. Instead, the Supreme Court
saves all the recordings until the following October, at which point it transmits them
to the National Archives. And it is only thanks to websites like <a href="https://www.oyez.org">The Oyez Project</a>
that we are able to finally listen to those announcements, after they have requested the
recordings from the National Archives, extracted the opinion announcements, and matched
them to the appropriate cases.</p>
<p>There is an incredible irony here, because it is the Supreme Court’s decisions – not the
arguments that precede them – which embody the most important work of the Court, yet the
only transcripts and audio recordings you will find on the Court’s own website are those
of the <em>arguments</em>, not of the <em>opinion announcements</em>.</p>
<p>I have personally heard Chief Justice John Roberts explain away this irony by claiming that
opinion announcements are primarily for the benefit of, say, the family from Iowa who happens
to be visiting the Court that day. There was also the implication that since none of the other
Justices “sign off” on these verbal announcements, they should not be accorded the same weight
as the written opinions.</p>
<p>This is absurd on several levels. First, very few people can afford the time and expense to
visit the Supreme Court, and often the people who <em>are</em> in the courtroom on any given day have
no idea what will be announced. It makes little sense for the Court to methodically announce
its decisions to a random group of people in the courtroom who largely don’t care, while many
more people all around the country who <em>do</em> care about the decisions being announced are explicitly
denied that benefit – and not just for a day or a week but up to an entire year.</p>
<p>Yes, the written opinion is the definitive embodiment of a decision, and yes, written opinions
are released to everyone simultaneously on the Court’s website. But for the Court to also engage
in this long tradition of formally announcing opinions and to pretend that these announcements
don’t even rise to the importance or value of the oral arguments, is, as I’ve said, absurd.</p>
<h2 id="the-recording-of-opinion-announcements">The Recording of Opinion Announcements</h2>
<p>After the U.S. Supreme Court installed a reel-to-reel tape recording system in 1955, the tape
recorder was typically only engaged during oral argument. As a result, other Court activities,
such as the Marshal’s call to order, admissions to the bar, and opinion announcements, were not
routinely recorded – at least not until William Rehnquist became Chief Justice in 1986.</p>
<p>However, even before then, whoever was operating the equipment would occasionally record other
events. For example, in 2007, I <a href="/blog/2019/03/01/">discovered</a> that the opinion announcements in
<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/22">Time v. Hill</a> and <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1966/136">Swann v. Adams</a>
had been recorded on January 9, 1967. It’s unclear whether these rare occurrences were at the direction
of the Chief Justice or mere happenstance.</p>
<h2 id="opinion-announcement-in-milliken-v-bradley">Opinion Announcement in Milliken v. Bradley</h2>
<p>During a recent audit of all posted U.S. Supreme Court argument transcripts, I discovered one
transcript that was out of place: the opinion announcement for <em>Milliken v. Bradley</em>.</p>
<p>I have saved a copy of that transcript <a href="/sources/scotus/opinions/1973/73-434_1974-07-25.pdf">here</a>,
because I’ve never seen a transcript of an opinion announcement from the Court before, and shortly after the Court
was asked about that particular transcript, they removed it from their website. Moreover, the Court did not offer
any explanation as to why this transcript was created or whether any other opinion announcement transcripts also
exist.</p>
<p>The existence of more such transcripts would be an important find, because many other significant cases were
decided in the early 1970s, such as <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1971/70-18">Roe v. Wade</a>, and there are no known
audio recordings of those opinion announcements.</p>Up until March 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court’s list of transcripts for the 1973 Term included the following transcripts from July 1974:Supreme Court Briefs2019-03-09T00:00:00-08:002019-03-09T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/03/supreme-court-briefs<p><a href="/briefs/">U.S. Supreme Court Briefs</a> are important historical documents, but finding them
isn’t always easy, and not everyone is near one of the handful of
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/meritsbriefs/briefsource.aspx">official depositories</a> where the
Supreme Court sends all its extra briefs. In fact, now that the Court appears to have fully
embraced electronic document submission, the days of printed briefs may soon be coming to an end.</p>
<p>I’ve created a small online collection of <a href="/briefs/featured/">Featured Briefs</a>, which I hope
will grow over time. Most have been scanned by other groups, such as the now-defunct
<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20081020193042/http://curiae.law.yale.edu/">Curiae Project</a>,
but I occasionally scan some myself as well, since I live near the University of Washington,
which holds an impressive collection of old Supreme Court briefs in its Law Library.</p>
<p>For example, in 2017, I scanned all the briefs from <a href="/briefs/featured/korematsu-v-united-states">Korematsu v. United States</a>
for a podcast producer. It proved to be a rather thankless task, but at least now the collection is a tiny bit larger.</p>U.S. Supreme Court Briefs are important historical documents, but finding them isn’t always easy, and not everyone is near one of the handful of official depositories where the Supreme Court sends all its extra briefs. In fact, now that the Court appears to have fully embraced electronic document submission, the days of printed briefs may soon be coming to an end.The Supreme Court Library2019-03-02T00:00:00-08:002019-03-02T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/03/the-supreme-court-library<p>In March 2005, on my first (and last) visit to the U.S. Supreme Court Library, with librarian Brian
Stiglmeier’s help, I was able to browse their small collection of early transcripts and duplicate
a few of them. All the copies I made are available under <a href="/transcripts/">Transcripts</a>.</p>
<p>In addition, the Library gave me a document titled
“<a href="/sources/scotus/transcripts/SCOTUS_Library_Oral_Arguments_Prior_To_1968.pdf">Oral Arguments Available in the U.S. Supreme Court Library Prior to the 1968 Term</a>” (the handwritten notations are mine).
A list of the cases in that 2005 document have been reproduced <a href="#oral-arguments-available-in-the-us-supreme-court-library-prior-to-the-1968-term">below</a>.</p>
<p>Sadly, shortly after my visit in 2005, the Supreme Court Library closed for remodeling, and
when it reopened, it was <em>no longer open to the public</em>. If you take a tour of the Supreme Court,
they will permit you to peer into the library through a pane of glass, but even on a guided tour,
the public isn’t permitted in the library. It has become an enclave for the exclusive use of
employees, members of the Supreme Court Bar, and other “privileged” guests – not exactly the sort
of openness one might hope for from our own Federal government.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/scotus/Supreme-Court-Library.jpg" alt="Supreme Court Library" /></p>
<p>In recent years, the Supreme Court Library has
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/archived_transcripts/1968">posted</a> all its transcripts
from the 1968 Term onward, as well as historical copies of the
<a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/scannedjournals.aspx">Journal of the Supreme Court of the United States</a>.
They haven’t yet added any of the <a href="/transcripts/pre-1968/">pre-1968 transcripts</a> in their possession,
but this is a welcome trend.</p>
<p>However, I suspect these digitization efforts are primarily an attempt to deflect any criticism
of the Library’s “closed door” policy, because the more materials they can claim are available
either on their website or at other public institutions, the more they probably think their
restrictive policy is somehow defensible. In my humble opinion, it is not.</p>
<hr />
<p>NOTE: According to the Supreme Court Historical Society website, “By special written arrangement
with the Librarian of the Court, access to the Library is also available to visiting scholars in need
of materials uniquely available in the Library’s collection.”</p>
<p>In other words, if you jump through a series of undefined hoops <em>and</em> can demonstrate that whatever
you’re looking for is <em>not</em> available anywhere else, then maybe, just maybe, you’ll be allowed to visit
the library – or at least be permitted to wait at the door while someone else looks for you.</p>
<h2 id="oral-arguments-available-in-the-us-supreme-court-library-prior-to-the-1968-term">Oral Arguments Available in the U.S. Supreme Court Library Prior to the 1968 Term</h2>
<p>A few notes about the following list, from observations I made at the time:</p>
<ul>
<li>Just because a case is on the list doesn’t mean the Library still has it. For example, I asked for a 1903 case – <em>Northern Securities v. United States</em>, 193 U.S. 197 (Case No. 277) – and all Brian could tell me was that it wasn’t there.</li>
<li>Some of their transcripts, such as <em>Youngstown v. Sawyer</em>, are nothing more than copies from “Landmark Briefs and Arguments”. Since that argument predates the Court’s audio recording system, a formal transcript by a court reporter must have been produced, but apparently the Library no longer has it.</li>
<li>Other transcripts are 2nd or 3rd generation copies; for example, Brian showed me their <em>Brown v. Board of Education</em> transcripts: poor quality light-purple copies made from long-lost originals.</li>
<li>A small number of transcripts going back as far as 1844 are available, but they are in a special collection – “The Elbridge Thomas Gerry Collection” – which I was not allowed to see on short notice.</li>
</ul>
<p>Note that not every case in the list represents a distinct transcript, because some were
consolidated for oral argument. Moreover, not every transcript in the list is a unique holding
of the Supreme Court Library; most of them are also available on microfiche (eg, the University
Publications of America microfiche collection), while others are available in the
“<a href="/sources/lba/lists/Landmark_Briefs_and_Arguments-Index.pdf">Landmark Briefs and Arguments</a>”
collection (eg, <em>Adamson v. California</em>, <em>Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority</em>, etc).
I’ve made an effort to <strong>highlight</strong> any cases below that fall outside those collections and
therefore <em>may</em> be a unique holding.</p>
<p>It’s also possible that many of the following transcripts are unique insofar as they differ
from what’s available on microfiche, because many of the UPA transcripts were recreated after
the fact, by transcribing <a href="/blog/2019/03/01/">Supreme Court audio tapes</a> deposited at the National
Archives, whereas transcripts in the Supreme Court Library’s possession are often copies produced
by a court reporter.</p>
<p>See <a href="/transcripts/">Transcripts</a> for further discussion.</p>
<ul>
<li>AARON V. COOPER, 357 U.S. 566 (October Term 1957) No. 1095</li>
<li>ACHILLI V. UNITED STATES, 353 U.S. 373 (October Term 1946) No. 430 & 834</li>
<li>ADAMSON V. CALIFORNIA, 332 U.S. 46,784 (October Term 1946) No. 102</li>
<li><strong>AIRCRAFT & D. EQUIPMENT CORP. V. HIRSCH, 331 U.S. 752, 332 U.S. 752 (October Term 1947) No. 95</strong></li>
<li>ALABAMA V. TEXAS, 347 U.S. 272 (October Term 1953) Blank original</li>
<li>ALLEGHANY CORP. V. BRESWICK CO., 363 U.S. 151 (October Term 1956) No. 36</li>
<li><strong>ALLRED V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li>AMERICAN COMMERCIAL LINES, INC. V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO. 392 U.S. 571 (October Term 1967) No. 797</li>
<li>AMERICAN DIST. TEL. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 563 (October Term 1965) No. 73</li>
<li>AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS V. CARROLL, 391 U.S. 99 (October Term 1967) No. 309</li>
<li>AMERICAN SOCIETY OF TRAVEL AGENTS, INC. V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, 391 U.S. 461 (October Term 1967) No. 800</li>
<li><strong>AMERICAN THEATERS ASSOC. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li><strong>AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOC. V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 392 U.S. 571 (October Term 1967) No. 797</strong></li>
<li><strong>AMERICAN WATERWAYS OPERATORS, INC. V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 392 U.S. 571 (October Term 1967) No. 797</strong></li>
<li>ANGELET V. FAY, 381 U.S. 654 (October Term 1964) No. 578</li>
<li><strong>ARIZONA V. CALIFORNIA, Original No. 8 368 U.S. 950 (1961), 370 U.S. 906 (1961), 370 U.S. 930 (1961), 373 U.S. 546 (1962), 375 U.S. 892 (1963), 376 U.S. 340 (1963)</strong></li>
<li>ARKANSAS V. TEXAS, 346 U.S. 368 (October Term 1953) Blank original</li>
<li><strong>ARMSTRONG V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 243 (October Term 1900) No. 509 *note: also found in serial set vol. 4171</strong></li>
<li>ASHWANDER V. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY, 297 U.S. 288 (October Term 1935) Nos. 403 & 404</li>
<li><strong>ASSOCIATED INDUSTRIES V. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR (N.Y.), 299 U.S. 515 (October Term 1936) No. 64</strong></li>
<li><strong>ASSOCIATED PRESS, INTERNATIONAL NEWS SERVICE V. NLRB, 301 U.S. 103 (October Term 1936) No. 365 *note: also found in serial set vol. 10099</strong></li>
<li>ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO. V. BROTHERHOOD OF R. TRAINMEN et al., 385 U.S. 20 (October Term 1966) No. 220</li>
<li>ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 381 U.S. 357 (October Term 1964) No. 292</li>
<li>ATLANTIC REFINING CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 378 (October Term 1958) No. 518</li>
<li><strong>AUTOMATIC CANTEEN CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION, 346 U.S. 61 (October Term 1952) No. 89</strong></li>
<li>AUTOMATIC FIRE ALARM CO. V. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 563 (October Term 1965) No. 77</li>
<li><strong>AUTOMATIC RADIO MFG. CO. V. HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC., 339 U.S. 827 (October Term 1949) No. 455</strong></li>
<li>AVENT V. NORTH CAROLINA, 373 U.S. 375 (October Term 1962) No. 11</li>
<li>BAKER, WEEKS & CO. V. BRESWICK & CO., 353 U.S. 151 (October Term 1956) No. 36</li>
<li>BAKER V. CARR, 369 U.S. 186 (October Term 1960) No. 103</li>
<li>BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 373 U.S. 372 (October Term 1962) No. 97</li>
<li>BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 372 (October Term 1966) No. 642</li>
<li>BALTIMORE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li>BARR V. COLUMBIA, 378 U.S. 146 (October Term 1963) No. 9</li>
<li><strong>BARROWS V. JACKSON, 346 U.S. 249 (October Term 1952) No. 517</strong></li>
<li><strong>BATES V. ILLINOIS C.R. CO., 1 BLACK 204 (December Term 1861) IN: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, comp. Law arguments… [1649-1881] v.4 arguments by William Curtis Noyes. ALSO IN: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, 1837-1927 comp. pamphlets… v.16.</strong></li>
<li><strong>BAZLEY V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVIEW, 329 U.S. 701, 331 U.S. 737 (October Term 1946); 332 U.S. 752 (October Term 1947) No. 287</strong></li>
<li>BECK V. WASHINGTON, 369 U.S. 541 (October Term 1961) No. 40</li>
<li>BELL V. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 226 (October Term 1963) No. 12</li>
<li>BENZ V. COMPANIA NAVIERA HIDALGO, S.A., 353 U.S. 138 (October Term 1956) No. 204</li>
<li><strong>BLAU, IRVING V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 159 (October Term 1950) No. 20</strong></li>
<li><strong>BLAU, PATRICIA V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 332 (October Term 1950) No. 20</strong></li>
<li>BOARD OF EDUCATION V. ALLEN, 392 U.S. 236 (October Term 1967) No. 660</li>
<li>BIORE V. GREYHOUND CORP., 376 U.S. 473 (October Term 1963) No. 77</li>
<li>BOLLING V. SHARPE, 349 U.S. 294 (October Term 1954) Original No. 4</li>
<li>BOOK NAMED `JOHN CLELAND’S MEMOIRS OF A WOMAN OF PLEASURE’ V. ATTY. GEN., 383 U.S. 413 (October Term 1965) No. 368</li>
<li>BOSTON & MAINE CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830, etc. consolidated</li>
<li>BOUIE V. COLUMBIA, 378 U.S. 347 (October Term 1963) No. 10</li>
<li>BRENNER V. MANSON, 383 U.S. 519 (October Term 1965) No. 58</li>
<li><strong>BRIDGES V. UNITED STATES, 346 U.S. 209 (October Term 1952) No. 548</strong></li>
<li>BRIGGS V. ELLIOT, 349 U.S. 294 (October Term 1954) No. 2</li>
<li>BROTHERHOOD OF LOCOMOTIVE ENGINEERS, et. al. V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 382 U.S. 423 (October Term 1965) No. 69</li>
<li>BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYEES V. UNITED STATES, 366 U.S. 169 (October Term 1960) No. 681</li>
<li>BROWN V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 349 U.S. 294 (October Term 1954) No. 1</li>
<li>BROWN SHOE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 370 U.S. 294 (October Term 1961) No. 4</li>
<li><strong>BURSTYN V. WILSON, 343 U.S. 495 (October Term 1951) No. 522</strong></li>
<li>C & C SUPER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 38 (October Term 1962) No. 42</li>
<li>CALIFORNIA V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS COMPANY, 386 U.S. 129 (October Term 1966) No. 4</li>
<li>CALIFORNIA V. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, 373 U.S. 294 (October Term 1962) No. 72</li>
<li>CALIFORNIA V. LO-VACA GATHERING COMPANY, 379 U.S. 366 (October Term 1964) No. 46</li>
<li>CALIFORNIA V. STEWART, 384 U.S. 436 (October Term 1965) No. 584</li>
<li>CALMAR, INC. V. COOK CHEMICAL CO., 383 U.S. 1 (October Term 1965) No. 11</li>
<li>CALUMET HARBOR TERMINALS, INC. V. NORFOLK & W.R. CO., 385 U.S. 57 (October Term 1966) No. 15</li>
<li>CAMMARANO V. UNITED STATES, 358 U.S. 498 (October Term 1958) No. 29</li>
<li>CAMPBELL V. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293 (October Term 1966) No. 32</li>
<li>CARDONA V. POWER, 384 U.S. 672 (October Term 1965) No. 673</li>
<li><strong>CARMICHAEL V. GULF STATES PAPER CORP., 301 U.S. 495 (October Term 1936) No. 797 *also found in serial set v. 10100</strong></li>
<li><strong>CARMICHAEL V. SOUTHERN COAL & COKE CO., 301 U.S. 495 (October Term 1936) No. 724 *also found in serial set v. 10100</strong></li>
<li>CARROLL V. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF MUSICIANS, 391 U.S. 99 (October Term 1967) No. 309</li>
<li>CARTER V. CARTER COAL COMPANY, 298 U.S. 238 (October Term 1935) Nos. 636, 649, 650, 651 *also see serial set vol. 10016</li>
<li>CASCADE NATURAL GAS CORP. V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS, 386 U.S. 129 (October Term 1966) No. 4</li>
<li><strong>CHAMBERLIN (W.H.H.) V. ANDREWS, 299 U.S. 515 (October Term 1936) No. 49</strong></li>
<li><strong>CHARLES C. STEWARD MACHINE CO. V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 548 (October Term 1936) No. 837 *note: also found in serial set vol. 10100</strong></li>
<li><strong>CHESAPEAKE & O.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 806 (October Term 1946) No. 255</strong></li>
<li>CHICAGO & E.I.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 372 (October Term 1966) No. 815</li>
<li>CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN R. CO. V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 387 U.S. 326 (October Term 1966) No. 8</li>
<li>CHICAGO & NORTH WESTERN R. CO. V. CHICAGO, M. ST. P. & P.R. CO., 380 U.S. 448 (October Term 1964) No. 21</li>
<li><strong>CITIES SERVICE GAS CO. V. PEERLESS OIL & GAS CO., 340 U.S. 179 (October Term 1950) No. 153</strong></li>
<li>CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., 391 U.S. 461 (October Term 1967) No. 800</li>
<li>COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO. V. COOK CHEMICAL CO., 383 U.S. 1 (October Term 1965) No. 11</li>
<li><strong>COLUMBIA PICTURES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li><strong>COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. CHURCH, 335 U.S. 632 (October Term 1948) No. 5</strong></li>
<li>COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE V. MERRITT, 380 U.S. 624 (October Term 1964) No. 134</li>
<li>COOPER V. AARON, 358 U.S. 1 (October Term 1958) No. 1 misc.</li>
<li>COSTELLO V. UNITED STATES, 350 U.S. 359 (October Term 1955) No. 72</li>
<li><strong>CROSSMAN V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 221 (October Term 1900) No. 340</strong></li>
<li><strong>DAIRY QUEEN, INC. V. WOOD, 369 U.S. 469 (October Term 1961) No. 244</strong></li>
<li>DAVIS V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY, 349 U.S. 294 (October Term 1954) No. 3</li>
<li>DAVIS V. NORTH CAROLINA, 384 U.S. 737 (October Term 1965) No. 815</li>
<li><strong>DELAWARE & H.R. CORP., CLARK V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 372 (October Term 1966) No. 680</strong></li>
<li><strong>DELIMA V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 1 (October Term 1900) No. 456 *also found in serial set vol. 4171</strong></li>
<li><strong>DOHIHARA V. MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197 (October Term 1948) No. 240</strong></li>
<li><strong>DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 222 (October Term 1900) No. 501 *also found in serial set vol. 4171</strong></li>
<li><strong>DOOLEY V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 151 (October Term 1900) No. 502 *note: bound in with Records & Briefs v. 37A. Also found in serial set v. 4171</strong></li>
<li>DOWD (CHARLES) BOX CO., INC. V. COURTNEY, et al., 368 U.S. 502 (October Term 1961) No. 33</li>
<li><strong>DOWNES V. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (October Term 1900) No. 507 *also found in serial set vol. 4171</strong></li>
<li>EASTERN R. PRESIDENTS CONFERENCE V. NOERR MOTOR FREIGHT, INC., 365 U.S. 127 (October Term 1960) No. 50</li>
<li>ERIE-LACKAWANNA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 272 (October Term 1966) No. 691</li>
<li>ERIE-LACKAWANNA R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830, etc. consolidated</li>
<li>ESTES V. TEXAS, 381 U.S. 532 (October Term 1964) No. 256</li>
<li><strong>EWING V. MYTINGER & CASSELBERRY, 339 U.S. 594 (October Term 1949) No. 568</strong></li>
<li><strong>FAHEY, EX PARTE V. MALLONEE, 332 U.S. 245 (October Term 1946) No. 687</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL MARITIME COM. V. AKTIEBOLAGET SVENSKA AMERIKA LINTEN, 390 U.S. 238 (October Term 1967) No. 257</li>
<li><strong>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. ARKANSAS POWER & L. CO., 329 U.S. 703, 330 U.S. 802, 856 (October Term 1946) No. 543</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. CALLERY PROPERTIES, INC., 382 U.S. 223 (October Term 1965) No. 21</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. HUNT, 376 U.S. 515 (October Term 1963) No. 273</li>
<li><strong>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. IDAHO POWER CO., 344 U.S. 17 (October Term 1952) No. 12</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. LO-VACA GATHERING CO., 379 U.S. 366 (October Term 1964) No. 46</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. MEMPHIS LIGHT GAS & WATER DIV., 358 U.S. 103 (October Term 1958) No. 23</li>
<li><strong>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. PANHANDLE EASTERN PIPE LINE CO., 337 U.S. 498 (October Term 1948) No. 558</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. SUNRAY DX OIL CO., 391 U.S. 9 (October Term 1967) No. 60</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. TEXACO, INC., 377 U.S. 33 (October Term 1963) No. 386</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPE LINE CORP., 365 U.S. 1 (October Term 1960) No. 45</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION V. UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO., 386 U.S. 237 (October Term 1966) No. 127</li>
<li>FEDERAL POWER COM. V. WISCONSIN, 347 U.S. 672 (October Term 1953) No. 280</li>
<li><strong>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. CEMENT INSTITUTE, 333 U.S. 683 (October Term 1947) No. 23</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE CO., 380 U.S. 374 (October Term 1964) No. 62</li>
<li>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. CONSOLIDATED FOODS CORP., 380 U.S. 592 (October Term 1964) No. 422</li>
<li>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. FRED MEYER, INC., 390 U.S. 341 (October Term 1967) No. 27</li>
<li>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. PROCTER & GAMBLE CO., 386 U.S. 568 (October Term 1966) No. 342</li>
<li><strong>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. RUBEROID CO., 343 U.S. 470 (October Term 1951) No. 448</strong></li>
<li>FEDERAL TRADE COM. V. STANDARD OIL CO., 355 U.S. 396 (October Term 1957) No. 24</li>
<li>FIBERBOARD PAPER PRODUCTS CORP. V. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203 (October Term 1964) No. 14</li>
<li>FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF ARIZONA V. CITIES SERVICE CO., 391 U.S. 253 (October Term 1967) No. 23 *note: argued as Waldron v. Cities Services Co.</li>
<li>FITZGERALD V. UNITED STATES LINE CO., 374 U.S. 16 (October Term 1962) No. 463</li>
<li>FLAST V. COHEN, 392 U.S. 83 (October Term 1967) No. 416</li>
<li>FLAST V. GARDENER, *see FLAST V. COHEN</li>
<li>FORMAN V. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 416 (October Term 1959) No. 43</li>
<li>FORTNIGHTLY CORP. V. UNITED ARTISTS TELEVISION, INC., 392 U.S. 390 (October Term 1967) No. 618</li>
<li><strong>FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS V. UNITED STATES, 183 U.S. 176 (October Term 1901) No. 153 *note: also found in serial set v. 4171</strong></li>
<li>FREEDMAN V. MARYLAND, 380 U.S. 51 (October Term 1964) No. 69</li>
<li>GALLICK V. BALTIMORE & OHIO R. CO., 372 U.S. 108 (October Term 1962) No. 76</li>
<li><strong>GARDNER V. NEW JERSEY, No. 92 328 U.S. 850, 876 (October Term 1946); 329 U.S. 565 (October Term 1946); 330 U.S. 853 (October Term 1946)</strong></li>
<li>GARDNER V. LOUISIANA, 368 U.S. 157 (October Term 1961) No. 26</li>
<li>GEBHART V. BELTON, 349 U.S. 294 (October Term 1954) No. 5</li>
<li>GEORGIA V. RACHEL, 384 U.S. 780 (October Term 1965) No. 147</li>
<li><strong>GEORGIA R. & BKG. CO. V. REDWINE, 342 U.S. 299 (October Term 1951) No. 1</strong></li>
<li>GILBERT V. CALIFORNIA, 388 U.S. 263 (October Term 1966) No. 223</li>
<li>GINZBURG V. UNITED STATES, 383 U.S. 463 (October Term 1965) No. 42</li>
<li><strong>GLORE, F & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 380 U.S. 806 (October Term 1946) No. 256</strong></li>
<li>GOBER V. BIRMINGHAM, 373 U.S. 374 (October Term 1962) No. 66</li>
<li><strong>GOETZ V. UNITED STATES, 182 U.S. 221 (October Term 1900) No. 340 *note: also found in serial set v. 4171</strong></li>
<li>GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COM., 381 U.S. 357 (October Term 1964) no. 292</li>
<li>GORI V. UNITED STATES, 367 U.S. 364 (October Term 1960) No. 486</li>
<li>GOSS V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 373 U.S. 683 (October Term 1962) No. 217</li>
<li>GRAHAM V. JOHN DEERE CO., 383 U.S. 1 (October Term 1965) No. 11</li>
<li>GREEN V. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NEW KENT COUNTY, 391 U.S. 430 (October Term 1967) No. 695</li>
<li><strong>GREENBERG V. UNITED STATES, 342 U.S. 917 (October Term 1951) No. 461</strong></li>
<li>GREENWOOD V. PEACOCK, 384 U.S. 808 (October Term 1965) No. 471</li>
<li>GRIFFIN V. MARYLAND, 378 U.S. 130 (October Term 1963) No. 26 –rehearing. (Library also has October Term 1962 argument No. 6)</li>
<li>GRINNELL CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 563 (October Term 1965) No. 73</li>
<li>GROSSO V. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 62 (October Term 1967) No. 12</li>
<li><strong>GROVES V. SLAUGHTER, 15 Pet. 449 (January Term 1841) In: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, comp. law arguments… [1649-1841] v. 4. Arguments by Robert James Walker</strong></li>
<li>GRUSS (OSCAR) & SON V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc., consolidated.</li>
<li>HAMM V. ROCKHILL, 379 U.S. 306 (October Term 1964) No. 2</li>
<li>HANNAH V. LARCHE, 363 U.S. 420 (October Term 1959) No. 549</li>
<li>HANNAH V. SLAWSON, 363 U.S. 420 (October Term 1959) No. 549</li>
<li>HARDIN V. CHICAGO, R.I. & P.R. CO., 382 U.S. 423 (October Term 1965) No. 69</li>
<li>HARRISON V. NATIONAL ASSOC. FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF COLORED PEOPLE, INC., 360 U.S. 167 (October Term 1958) No. 127</li>
<li>HAZELTINE RESEARCH, INC. V. BRENNER (LADD), 382 U.S. 252 (October Term 1965) No. 57</li>
<li>HAYNES V. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 85 (October Term 1967) No. 236</li>
<li><strong>HELVERING V. DAVIS, 301 U.S. 619 (October Term 1936) No. 910 *also found in serial set v. 10104 Senate Doc. 71</strong></li>
<li>HEWITT-ROBINS, INC. V. EASTERN FREIGHT WAYS, INC., 371 U.S. 84 (October Term 1962) no. 37</li>
<li><strong>HIROTA V. MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197 (October Term 1948) No. 239</strong></li>
<li>HOFFA V. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293 (October Term 1966) No. 32</li>
<li><strong>HOFFMAN V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 479 (October Term 1950) No. 513</strong></li>
<li>HOLMES ELECTRIC PROTECTIVE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 563 (October Term 1965) No. 73</li>
<li>HUGHES TOOL CO. V. TRANSWORLD AIRLINES, INC., 380 U.S. 248 (October Term 1964) No. 443</li>
<li>HUGHES TOOL CO. V. TRANSWORLD AIRLINES, INC., 380 U.S. 249 (October Term 1964) No. 501</li>
<li>HEART OF ATLANTA MOTEL, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 241 (October Term 1964) No. 515</li>
<li>ILLINOIS CENT. R. CO. V. NORFOLK & W.R. CO., 385 U.S. 57 (October Term 1966) No. 15</li>
<li>INCRES S.S. CO. V. INTERNATIONAL MARITIME WORKERS UNION, 372 U.S. 24 (October Term 1962) No. 33</li>
<li>INTERNATIONAL UNION U.A.A. & A.I.W. V. FAFNIR BEARING CO., 382 U.S. 205 (October Term 1965) No. 18</li>
<li>INTERNATIONAL UNION U.A.A. & A.I.W. V. SCOFIELD, 382 U.S. 205 (October Term 1965) no. 18</li>
<li>INTERSTATE CIRCUIT, INC. V. DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (October Term 1967) No. 56</li>
<li>INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM. V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 373 U.S. 372 (October Term 1962) No. 97</li>
<li>INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM. V. BRESWICK & CO., 353 U.S. 151 (October Term 1956) No. 36</li>
<li>INTERSTATE COMMERCE COM. V. LOUISVILLE & N.R. CO., 392 U.S. 571 (October Term 1967) No. 797</li>
<li><strong>INTERSTATE NATURAL GAS CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 329 U.S. 802, 330 U.S. 852, 331 U.S. 682, 332 U.S. 785 (October terms 1946 & 1947) No. 733</strong></li>
<li>IVANHOE IRRIG. DIST. V. MCCRACKEN, 357 U.S. 275 (October Term 1957) No. 122</li>
<li>JACOBELLIS V. OHIO, 373 U.S. 901 (October Term 1962) No. 164 *Reheard & decided as 378 U.S. 184 (October Term 1963) No. 11</li>
<li>JOHN HANCOCK MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li>JOHNSON V. NEW JERSEY, 384 U.S. 719 (October Term 1965) No. 762</li>
<li>JOHNSTON V. UNITED STATES, 351 U.S. 215 (October Term 1955) No. 643</li>
<li>KATZENBACH V. MORGAN, 384 U.S. 641 (October Term 1965) No. 847</li>
<li><strong>KIDO V. MACARTHUR, 338 U.S. 197 (October Term 1948) No. 248</strong></li>
<li>KING V. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293 (October Term 1966) No. 32</li>
<li>KINGSLEY INTERNATIONAL PICTURES CORP. V. REGENTS OF UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK STATE, 360 U.S. 684 (October Term 1958) No. 394</li>
<li>KINSELLA V. KRUEGER, 351 U.S. 470 (October Term 1955) No. 713 *reheard as 354 U.S. 1 (October Term 1956) No. 713 (bound with Oct. Term 1955 No. 713)</li>
<li>KLOR’S INC. V. BROADWAY-HALE STORES, INC., 359 U.S. 207 (October Term 1958) No. 76</li>
<li>LEITER MINERALS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 352 U.S. 220 (October Term 1956) No. 26</li>
<li>LEVIN, RE V. MISSISSIPPI RIVER FUEL CORP., 386 U.S. 162 (October Term 1966) No. 352</li>
<li>LEWIS V. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 206 (October Term 1966) No. 36</li>
<li><strong>LINCOLN FEDERAL LABOR UNION V. NORTH WESTERN IRON & METAL CO., 335 U.S. 525 (October Term 1948) No. 47</strong></li>
<li>LINK V. WABASH R. CO., 370 U.S. 626 (October Term 1961) No. 422</li>
<li>LINN V. UNITED PLANT GUARD WORKERS, 383 U.S. 53 (October Term 1965) no. 45</li>
<li>LOCAL NO. 8-6 OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION AFL-CIO V. MISSOURI, 361 U.S. 363 (October Term 1959) No. 42</li>
<li>LOCAL 174 TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA V. LUCAS FLOOR CO., 369 U.S. 95 (October Term 1961) No. 50</li>
<li><strong>LOEW’S, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li>LOEW’S, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 38 (October Term 1962) No. 42</li>
<li>LOMBARD V.LOUISIANA, 373 U.S. 267 (October Term 1962) No. 58</li>
<li>LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 373 U.S. 294 (October Term 1962) No. 72</li>
<li>LUPPER V. ARKANSAS, 379 U.S. 306 (October Term 1964) No. 5</li>
<li>MADERA IRRIG. DIST. V. ALBONICO, 357 U.S. 275 (October Term 1957) No. 122</li>
<li>MADERA IRRIG. DIST. V. STEINER, 357 U.S. 275 (October Term 1957) No. 122</li>
<li><strong>MANDEVILLE ISLAND FARMS V. AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR CO., 334 U.S. 219 (October Term 1947) No. 75</strong></li>
<li>MANEJA V. WAIALUA AGRICULTURAL CO. LTD., 349 U.S. 254 (October Term 1954) No. 357</li>
<li>MARCHETTI V. UNITED STATES, 390 U.S. 39 (October Term 1967) No. 2</li>
<li><strong>MARK (CLATON) & CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COM., 336 U.S. 956 (October Term 1948) No. 464</strong></li>
<li>MARYLAND PORT AUTHORITY V. BOSTON & M.R. CO., 373 U.S. 372 (October Term 1962) No. 97</li>
<li><strong>MCCRACKAN V. HAYWARD, 2 How 608 (January Term 1844) *In: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, comp. Law Arguments [1649-1881] v. 3</strong></li>
<li>MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS, & WATER DIV. V. UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO., 386 U.S. 237 (October Term 1966) No. 127</li>
<li>MENOMINEE TRIBE OF INDIANS V. UNITED STATES, 391 U.S. 404 (October Term 1967) No. 187</li>
<li>MICHIGAN NAT. BANK V. MICHIGAN, 365 U.S. 467 (October Term 1960) No. 155</li>
<li>MIDWEST TELEVISION, INC. V. SOUTHWESTERN CABLE CO., 392 U.S. 157 (October Term 1967) No. 363</li>
<li><strong>MILLIGAN, EX PARTE, 4 Wall 2 (December Term 1866) In: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, comp. Law Arguments [1649-1881] v. 3 *see also KF5063.M5, the MILLIGAN CASE.</strong></li>
<li>MIRANDA V. ARIZONA, 384 U.S. 436 (October Term 1965) No. 759</li>
<li>MISHKIN V. NEW YORK, 383 U.S. 502 (October Term 1965) No. 49</li>
<li>MONROE V. BOARD OF COMRS., 391 U.S. 43 (October Term 1967) No. 695</li>
<li>MCCULLOCK V. SOCIEDAD NACIONAL DE MARINEROS DE HONDURAS, 372 U.S. 10 (October Term 1962) No. 107</li>
<li>MCLEOD V. EMPRESA HONDURENA DE VAPORES, 372 U.S. 10 (October Term 1962) No. 107</li>
<li>MUKEY V. REITMAN, (1966 term) No. 24</li>
<li>NATIONAL BELLAS HESS, INC. V. DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, 386 U.S. 753 (October Term 1966) No. 241</li>
<li>NATIONAL COAL ASSOC. V. TRANSCONTINENTAL GAS PIPELINE CORP., 365 U.S. 1 (October Term 1960) No. 45</li>
<li><strong>NATIONAL LEAD CO. V. UNITED STATES, 332 U.S. 751 (October Term 1946) No. 90</strong></li>
<li>NATIONAL MARITIME UNION V. EMPRESA HONDURA DE VAPORES, 372 U.S. 10 (October Term 1962) No. 107</li>
<li>NEW YORK CITY BOARD OF ELECTIONS V. MORGAN, 384 U.S. 641 (October Term 1965) No. 847</li>
<li>NEW YORK, N.H. & H.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li>NEW YORK TIMES CO. V. SULLIVAN, 376 U.S. 254 (October Term 1963) No. 39</li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. ATKINS (E.C.) & CO., 329 U.S. 710, 331 U.S. 398, 868 (October Term 1946) No. 419</strong></li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. DONNELLY GARMENT CO., 330 U.S. 219 (October Term 1946) No. 38</strong></li>
<li>NLRB V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP. 373 U.S. 734 (October Term 1962) No. 404</li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. FRIEDMAN-HARRY MARKS CLOTHING CO., 301 U.S. 58 (October Term 1936) Nos. 422, 423 *note: also found in serial set v. 10099</strong></li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. FRUEHAUF TRAILER CO., 301 U.S. 49 (October Term 1936) Nos. 420, 421 *note: also found in serial set v. 10099</strong></li>
<li>NLRB V. JONES & L. STEEL CORP., 301 U.S. 1 (October Term 1936) No. 419 *note: also found in serial set v. 10099</li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. JONES & L STEEL CORP., 331 U.S. 416, 868, 332 U.S. 823 (October Term 1946) No. 418</strong></li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. PITTSBURGH S.S. CO., 340 U.S. 498 (October Term 1950) No. 42</strong></li>
<li><strong>NLRB V. TOWER (A.J.), 329 U.S. 324 (October Term 1946) No. 60</strong></li>
<li>NORFOLK & W.R. CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li><strong>NORMAN V. BALTIMORE-OHIO R. CO., 294 U.S. 240 (October Term 1934) no. 270</strong></li>
<li><strong>NORTHERN SECURITIES V. UNITED STATES, 193 U.S. 197 (October Term 1903) No. 277</strong></li>
<li><strong>NORTZ V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 317 (October Term 1934) No. 531</strong></li>
<li>NOTO V. UNITED STATES, 367 U.S. 290 (October Term 1960) No. 9</li>
<li><strong>NYE & NISSEN V. UNITED STATES, 336 U.S. 613 (October Term 1948) No. 228</strong></li>
<li>OCEAN DRILLING & EXPLORATION CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 382 U.S. 223 (October Term 1965) No. 21</li>
<li>OHIO V. KENTUCKY, original no. 27, 384 U.S. 982 (October Term 1965); 385 U.S. 803 (October Term 1966); 404 U.S. 933 (October Term 1971); 406 U.S. 915 (October Term 1971); 409 U.S. 974, 1102 (October Term 1972); 410 U.S. 641 (October Term 1973); 414 U.S. 989 (October Term 1973); 416 U.S. 965 (October Term 1974)</li>
<li>OIL, CHEMICAL & ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION V. MISSOURI, 361 U.S. 363 (October Term 1959) No. 42</li>
<li>OPPER V. UNITED STATES, 348 U.S. 84 (October Term 1954) No. 49</li>
<li>ORDER OF R. TELEGRAPHERS V. CHICAGO & N.W.R. CO., 362 U.S. 330 (October Term 1960) No. 100</li>
<li><strong>OTIS & CO., KAISER-FRAIZER CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 330 U.S. 806 (October Term 1946) No. 254</strong></li>
<li><strong>PACKARD MOTOR CAR CO., GEM MFG. CO. V. NLRB, 329 U.S. 707, 330 U.S. 485 (October Term 1946) No. 658</strong></li>
<li>PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 371 U.S. 296 (October Term 1962) No. 23</li>
<li>PARAGON JEWELL COAL CO. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 380 U.S. 624 (October Term 1964) No. 134</li>
<li><strong>PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li><strong>PARKER V. ILLINOIS, 333 U.S. 571 (October Term 1947) No. 270</strong></li>
<li>PARKS V. UNITED STATES, 385 U.S. 293 (October Term 1966) No. 32</li>
<li>PEACOCK V. GREENWOOD, 384 U.S. 808 (October Term 1965) No. 471</li>
<li><strong>PENFIELD CO. V. SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION, 330 U.S. 585 (October Term 1946) No. 453</strong></li>
<li><strong>PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COM. V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 343 U.S. 414 (October 1951) No. 428</strong></li>
<li><strong>PENNSYLVANIA WATER & POWER CO. V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 343 U.S. 414 (October Term 1951) No. 428</strong></li>
<li>PERMA LIFE MUFFLERS, INC. V. INTERNATIONAL PARTS CORP., 392 U.S. 134 (October Term 1967) No. 733</li>
<li><strong>PERRY V. UNITED STATES, 294 U.S. 330 (October Term 1934) No. 532</strong></li>
<li>PETERS V. HOBBY, 349 U.S. 331 (October Term 1954) No. 376</li>
<li>PETERS V. NEW YORK, 392 U.S. 40 (October Term 1967) No. 74</li>
<li>PETERSON V. GREENVILLE, 373 U.S. 244 (October Term 1962) No. 68</li>
<li><strong>PHILLIPS PETROLEUM CO. V. OKLAHOMA, 340 U.S. 190 (October Term 1950) No. 153</strong></li>
<li>PHILLIPS PETROLEUMM CO. V. WISCONSIN, 347 U.S. 672 (October Term 1953) No. 280</li>
<li>PLATT V. MINNESOTA MINING & MFG. CO., 376 U.S. 240 (October Term 1963) no. 113</li>
<li>POWELL V. TEXAS, 392 U.S. 514 (October Term 1967) No. 405</li>
<li>POWER REACTOR DEVELOPMENT CO. V. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, R. & M.W., 367 U.S. 396 (October Term 1960) No. 315</li>
<li>PRIMA PAINT CORP. V. FLOOD & CONKLIN MFG. CO., 388 U.S. 395 (October Term 1966) No. 343</li>
<li>PUBLIC SERVICE COM. V. CALLERY PROPERTIES, INC., 382 U.S. 223 (October Term 1965) No. 21</li>
<li>QUANTITY OF COPIES OF BOOKS V. KANSAS, 378 U.S. 205 (October Term 1963) No. 449</li>
<li>RADIANT BURNERS, INC. V. PEOPLES GAS LIGHT & COKE CO., 364 U.S. 656 (October Term 1960) No. 73</li>
<li><strong>RADIO CORP. OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 412 (October Term 1950) No. 565</strong></li>
<li>RAILROAD TRANSFER SERVICE, INC. V. CHICAGO, 386 U.S. 351 (October Term 1966) No. 209</li>
<li><strong>RAMSPECK V. FEDERAL TRIAL EXAMINERS CONFERENCE, 345 U.S. 128 (October Term 1952) No. 278</strong></li>
<li>RANEY V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 391 U.S. 443 (October Term 1967) No. 695</li>
<li><strong>RAY V. BLAIR, 343 U.S. 214 (October Term 1951) No. 649</strong></li>
<li>READING CO. V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li><strong>REGULAR COMMON CONFERENCE OF AMERICAN TRUCKING ASSOCIATIONS, INC. V. TEXAS & PACIFIC MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., 340 U.S. 450 (October Term 1950) No. 38</strong></li>
<li>REID V. COVERT, 351 U.S. 487 (October Term 1955) No. 701 Reheard 354 U.S. 1 (October Term 1956) No. 701 (bound with October Term 1955, No. 701)</li>
<li>RESERVE LIFE INSURANCE CO. V. BOWERS, 380 U.S. 258 (October Term 1964) No. 96</li>
<li>RETAIL CLERKS INTERNATIONAL ASSOC., AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS V. SCHERMERHORN, 373 U.S. 746 (October Term 1962) No. 368</li>
<li>RHODE ISLAND V. LOUISIANA, 347 U.S. 272 (October Term 1953) Blank original</li>
<li><strong>RICHFIELD OIL CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 922 (October Term 1951) No. 395</strong></li>
<li>ROBINSON V. FLORIDA, 378 U.S. 153 (October Term 1963) No. 60</li>
<li><strong>ROGERS V. UNITED STATES, 340 U.S. 367 (October Term 1950) No. 20</strong></li>
<li>ROSENBLATT V. BAER, 383 U.S. 75 (October Term 1965) No. 38</li>
<li>RUDOLPH V. UNITED STATES, 370 U.S. 269 (October Term 1961) No. 396</li>
<li>ROMAN V. SINCOCK, 377 U.S. 695 (October Term 1963) No. 307</li>
<li><strong>RUBEROID CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COM., 343 U.S. 470 (October Term 1951) No. 448</strong></li>
<li>RYAN V. UNITED STATES, 379 U.S. 61 (October Term 1964) No. 12</li>
<li>ST. JOE PAPER CO. V. ATLANTIC COAST LINE R. CO., 347 U.S. 298 (October Term 1953) No. 24</li>
<li>SAN DIEGO BLDG. TRADES COUNCIL V. GARMON, 359 U.S. 236 (October Term 1958) No. 66</li>
<li>SANTA BARBARA COUNTY WATER AGENCY V. BALAAM, 357 U.S. 275 (October Term 1957) No. 122</li>
<li>SAXON V. BANK OF NEW ORLEANS & TRUST CO., 379 U.S. 411 (October Term 1964) No. 26</li>
<li>SCALES V. UNITED STATES, 367 U.S. 203 (October Term 1960) No. 1</li>
<li><strong>SCHINE CHAIN THEATRES, INC. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 110 (October Term 1947) No. 10</strong></li>
<li>SCRANTON V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 372 (October Term 1966) No. 813</li>
<li>SCRANTON V. UNITED STATES, 389 U.S. 486 (October Term 1967) Nos. 778, 779, 830 etc. consolidated</li>
<li>SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COM. V. NEW ENGLAND ELECTRIC SYSTEM, 390 U.S. 207 (October Term 1967) No. 305</li>
<li>SHAPP, OLIVER V. UNITED STATES, 386 U.S. 372 (October Term 1966) No. 814</li>
<li>SHUTTLESWORTH V. BIRMINGHAM, 373 U.S. 262 (October Term 1962) No. 68</li>
<li>SIBRON V. NEW YORK, 392 U.S. 40 (October Term 1967) No. 63</li>
<li>SLOWCHOWER V. BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION OF NEW YORK CITY, 350 U.S. 551 (October Term 1955) No. 23</li>
<li>SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON CO. V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO., 386 U.S. 129 (October Term 1966) No. 4</li>
<li>SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS CO. V. LO-VACA GATHERING CO., 379 U.S. 366 (October Term 1964) No. 47</li>
<li><strong>SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. MCLAUGHLIN, 340 U.S. 602 (October Term 1950) No. 132</strong></li>
<li><strong>SPECTOR MOTOR SERVICE, INC. V. O’CONNOR, 340 U.S. 602 (October Term 1950) No. 132</strong></li>
<li>SPEVAK V. KLEIN, 385 U.S. 511 (October Term 1966) No. 62</li>
<li><strong>SPIEGEL V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 335 U.S. 701 (October Term 1948) No. 3</strong></li>
<li><strong>STANDARD OIL CO. V. FEDERAL TRADE COM., 340 U.S. 231 (October Term 1950) No. 1</strong></li>
<li>STATE BD. OF INS. V. TODD SHIPYARDS. CORP., 370 U.S. 451 (October Term 1961) No. 144</li>
<li><strong>STERNS (E.C.) & CO. V. ANDREWS, 299 U.S. 515 (October Term 1936) No. 50</strong></li>
<li><strong>STEELE V. BULOVA WATCH CO., 344 U.S. 280 (October Term 1952) No. 38</strong></li>
<li><strong>STEFANELL V. MINARD, 342 U.S. 117 (October Term 1951) No. 2</strong></li>
<li>STRAUSS (F.) & SON, INC. V. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, 358 U.S. 498 (October Term 1958) No. 50</li>
<li>SUNKIST GROWERS, INC. V. WINCKLER & SMITH CITRUS PRODUCTS CO., 370 U.S. 19 (October Term 1961) No. 241</li>
<li>SUSSER V. CARVEL CORP., 381 U.S. 125 (October Term 1964) No. 355</li>
<li><strong>SWIFT & CO. V. UNITED STATES, 343 U.S. 373 (October Term 1951) No. 282</strong></li>
<li>SWITZERLAND CHEESE ASSOC. V. E. HORNE’S MARKET, INC., 385 U.S. 23 (October Term 1966) No. 42</li>
<li>TACOMA V. TAXPAYERS OF TACOMA, 357 U.S. 320 (October Term 1957) No. 509</li>
<li>TAMPA ELECTRIC CO. V. NASHVILLE COAL CO., 365 U.S. 320 (October Term 1960) No. 87</li>
<li>TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN, & HELPERS OF AMERICA V. LUCAS FLOUR CO., 369 U.S. 95 (October Term 1961) No. 50</li>
<li>TENNESSEE GAS TRANSMISSION CO. V. PUBLIC SERVICE COM. OF NEW YORK, 360 U.S. 378 (October Term 1958) No. 518</li>
<li>TERRY V. OHIO, 392 U.S. 1 (October Term 1967) No. 67</li>
<li>TEXAS V. NEW MEXICO, et al., 352 U.S. 991 (October Term 1955) No. 9 original</li>
<li>TEXAS V. WISCONSIN, 347 U.S. 672 (October Term 1953) No. 280</li>
<li>TEXAS GAS TRANSMISSION CO. V. MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIV., 358 U.S. 103 (October Term 1958) No. 23</li>
<li>THOMPSON V. LOUISVILLE, 362 U.S. 199 (October Term 1959) No. 59</li>
<li>TIME, INC. V. HILL, 385 U.S. 374 (October Term 1966) No. 22</li>
<li>TIMES FILM CORP. V. CHICAGO, 365 U.S. 43 (October Term 1960) No. 34</li>
<li>UNITED ARTISTS CORP. V. DALLAS, 390 U.S. 676 (October Term 1967) No. 64</li>
<li><strong>UNITED ARTISTS CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li>UNITED GAS IMPROV. CO. V. CALLERY PROPERTIES, INC., 382 U.S. 223 (October Term 1965) No. 21</li>
<li>UNITED GAS IMPROV. CO. V. CONTINENTAL OIL CO., 381 U.S. 392 (October Term 1964) No. 644</li>
<li>UNITED GAS PIPE LINE CO. V. MEMPHIS LIGHT, GAS & WATER DIV., 358 U.S. 103 (October Term 1958) No. 23</li>
<li>UNITED MINE WORKERS V. ILLINOIS STATE BAR ASSOC., 389 U.S. 217 (October Term 1967) No. 33</li>
<li>UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 347 U.S. 521 (October Term 1953) No. 394</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. ADAMS, 383 U.S. 39 (October Term 1965) No. 55</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. ATCHISON, T. & S.F.R. CO., 387 U.S. 326 (October Term 1966) No. 8</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. ATLANTIC REFINING CO., 360 U.S. 19 (October Term 1958) No. 210</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. BANKERS TRUST CO., 294 U.S. 240 (October Term 1934) Nos. 471 & 472</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. BARNETT, 376 U.S. 681 (October Term 1963) No. 107</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. BORDEN CO., 370 U.S. 460 (October Term 1962) No. 439</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA, original no. 5, 375 U.S. 927 (October Term 1963); 381 U.S. 139 (October Term 1964); 382 U.S. 448 (October Term 1965); 382 U.S. 889 (October Term 1965)</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. CALIFORNIA EASTERN LINE, INC., 348 U.S. 351 (October Term 1954) No. 263</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. CHAMPLIN REFINING CO., 341 U.S. 290 (October Term 1950) No. 433</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. COLUMBIA STEEL CO., 334 U.S. 495 (October Term 1947) No. 461</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. CONTINENTAL CAN CO., 378 U.S. 441 (October Term 1963) No. 367</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. DIEBOLD, INC., 369 U.S. 654 (October Term 1961) No. 286</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. DUPONT (E.I.) DE NEMOURS & CO., 353 U.S. 586 (October Term 1956) No. 3</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. DUPONT (E.I.) DE NEMOURS & CO., 351 U.S. 377 (October Term 1955) No. 5</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. DUPONT (E.I.) DE NEMOURS & CO., 366 U.S. 316 (October Term 1960) No. 55</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. EL PASO NATURAL GAS CO., 376 U.S. 651 (October Term 1963) No. 94</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. EMPLOYING PLASTERERS ASSOC., 347 U.S. 186 (October Term 1953) No. 440</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. EWELL, 383 U.S. 116 (October Term 1965) No. 29</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. FELIN (JOHN J.) & CO., 330 U.S. 814 (October Term 1946) No. 862</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. FIRST CITY NATL. BANK, 386 U.S. 361 (October Term 1966) No. 914</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. FIRST NATL. BANK & TRUST CO., 376 U.S. 665 (October Term 1963) No. 36</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. GENERAL MOTORS CORP., 384 U.S. 127 (October Term 1965) No. 46</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. GRANT (W.T.) CO., 345 U.S. 629 (October Term 1952) No. 532</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. GREEN, 350 U.S. 415 (October Term 1955) No. 54</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. GRIFFITH, 334 U.S. 100 (October Term 1947) No. 64</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. GRINNELL CORP., 384 U.S. 563 (October Term 1965) No. 73</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. HUCK MFG. CO., 382 U.S. 197 (October Term 1965) No. 8</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL R. & M.W., 367 U.S. 396 (October Term 1960) No. 315</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTO A. & A.I.W., 352 U.S. 567 (October Term 1956) No. 44</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. KOENIG, 369 U.S. 121 (October Term 1961) No. 93</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. LINE MATERIAL CO., 333 U.S. 287 (October Term 1947) No. 8</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. LOEW’S, INC., 371 U.S. 38 (October Term 1962) No. 42</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, original no. 9, 394 U.S. 11 (October Term 1968); 394 U.S. 1 (October Term 1968); 394 U.S. 836 (October Term 1968)</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. LOUISIANA, TEXAS, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, & FLORIDA, still on the docket, Original no. 9</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. MINKER, 350 U.S. 179 (October Term 1955) No. 35</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. MISSISSIPPI, 380 U.S. 128 (October Term 1964) No. 73</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. NATIONAL DAIRY PRODUCTS CORP., 372 U.S. 29 (October Term 1962) No. 18</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. NORFOLK & W.R. CO., 385 U.S. 57 (October Term 1966) No. 15</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PABST BREWING CO., 384 U.S. 546 (October Term 1965) No. 404</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., 371 U.S. 296 (October Term 1962) No. 23</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. PARAMOUNT PICTURES, INC., 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) No. 79</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PARKE, DAVIS & CO., 362 U.S. 29 (October Term 1959) No. 20</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PATTESON, 351 U.S. 215 (October Term 1955) No. 643</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PENN-OLIN CHEMICAL CO., 389 U.S. 308 (October Term 1967) No. 26</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PENN-OLIN CHEMICAL CO., 378 U.S. 158 (October Term 1963) No. 503</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. PEWEE COAL CO., INC., 341 U.S. 114 (October Term 1950) No. 168</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PHILADELPHIA NATL. BANK, 374 U.S. 321 (October Term 1962) No. 83</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. PROVIDENT NATL. BANK, 386 U.S. 361 (October Term 1966) No. 972</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. PULLMAN CO., 330 U.S. 806 (October Term 1946) no. 253</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. RAGEN, 340 U.S. 462 (October Term 1950) No. 83</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., 362 U.S. 482 (October Term 1959) No. 56</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. ROCK ISLAND MOTOR TRANSIT CO., 340 U.S. 419 (October Term 1950) No. 25</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. SEATRAIN LINES, 329 U.S. 429 (October Term 1946) No. 61</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. SINGER MFG. CO., 374 U.S. 174 (October Term 1962) No. 438</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. SOUTHWESTERN CABLE CO., 392 U.S. 157 (October Term 1967) No. 363</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. TEXAS, original No. 7 still active</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. TEXAS & P. MOTOR TRANSPORT CO., 340 U.S. 450 (October Term 1950) No. 38</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. THIRD NATL. BANK, 390 U.S. 171 (October Term 1967) No. 86</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. THOMAS, 362 U.S. 58 (October Term 1959) No. 667</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. UNION PACIFIC R. CO., 353 U.S. 112 (October Term 1956) No. 97</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. UNITED MINE WORKERS, 329 U.S. 708, 330 U.S. 258 (October Term 1946) No. 759</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. UNITED SHOE MACHINERY CORP., 391 U.S. 244 (October Term 1967) No. 597</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 333 U.S. 364 (October Term 1947) No. 13</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO., 340 U.S. 76 (October Term 1950) No. 30</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. VON’S GROCERY CO., 384 U.S. 270 (October Term 1965) No. 303</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. WELDEN, 377 U.S. 95 (October Term 1963) No. 235</li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. WESTERN PACIFIC R. CO., 352 U.S. 59 (October Term 1956) No. 18</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. WHEELOCK BROS., INC., 341 U.S. 319 (October Term 1950) No. 169</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES V. WISE, 370 U.S. 405 (October Term 1962) No. 488</li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES V. YELLOW CAB CO., 332 U.S. 218 (October Term 1946) No. 1035</strong></li>
<li><strong>UNITED STATES ex rel QUIRIN V. COX, 317 U.S. 1 (July Special Term 1942) Nos. 1-7 *note: argued as UNITED STATES ex rel BURGER V. COX together with ex parte QUIRIN</strong></li>
<li>UNITED STATES GYPSUM CO. V. NATIONAL GYPSUM CO., 352 U.S. 457 (October Term 1956) No. 11</li>
<li>UNITED STEELWORKERS OF AMERICA V. UNITED STATES, 361 U.S. 39 (October Term 1959) No. 504</li>
<li><strong>UNIVERSAL PICTURES CORP. V. UNITED STATES, 334 U.S. 131 (October Term 1947) no. 79</strong></li>
<li>UTAH PIE CO. V. CONTINENTAL BAKING CO., 386 U.S. 685 (October Term 1966) No. 18</li>
<li>VIGNERA V. NEW YORK, 384 U.S. 436 (October Term 1965) No. 759</li>
<li>VIKING THEATER CORP. V. PARAMOUNT FILM DISTRIBUTING CORP., 378 U.S. 123 (October Term 1963) No. 481</li>
<li><strong>VIRGINIA V. WEST VIRGINIA, 11 Wall 39 (December Term 1870) In: Gerry, Elbridge Thomas, comp. Law Arguments… [1649-1881] v. 4 Argument by Charles James Faulkner.</strong></li>
<li><strong>VIRGINIAN RAILWAY CO. V. SYSTEM FEDERATION, R.E.D., 300 U.S. 515 (October Term 1936) No. 324 *note: also found in serial set vol. 10099</strong></li>
<li>WALKER V. BIRMINGHAM, 388 U.S. 307 (October Term 1966) No. 249</li>
<li>WALKER PROCESS EQUIPMENT, INC. V. FOOD MACHINERY & CHEMICAL CORP., 382 U.S. 172 (October Term 1965) No. 13</li>
<li><strong>WASHINGTON, VIRGINIA & MARYLAND COACH CO. V. N.L.R.B., 301 U.S. 142 (October Term 1936) No. 469 *note: also found in serial set vol. 10099</strong></li>
<li>WATSON V. MEMPHIS, 373 U.S. 526 (October Term 1962) No. 424</li>
<li>WESTOVER V. UNITED STATES, 384 U.S. 436 (October Term 1965) No. 759</li>
<li><strong>WHEELOCK BROS., INC. V. UNITED STATES, 341 U.S. 319 (October Term 1950) No. 169</strong></li>
<li><strong>WHITAKER V. NORTH CAROLINA, 335 U.S. 525 (October Term 1948) No. 34</strong></li>
<li>WEST POINT WHOLESALE GROCERY CO. V. OPELIKA, 354 U.S. 390 (October Term 1956) No. 478</li>
<li>WHITE MOTOR CO. V. UNITED STATES, 372 U.S. 253 (October Term 1962) No. 54</li>
<li>WHITNEY NATL. BANK V. BANK OF NEW ORLEANS & TRUST CO., 379 U.S. 411 (October Term 1964) No. 26</li>
<li>WILEY (JOHN) & SONS, INC. V. LIVINGSTON, 376 U.S. 543 (October Term 1963) No. 91</li>
<li>WILSON V. GIRARD, 354 U.S. 524 (October Term 1956) No. 1103</li>
<li>WIRTZ V. HOTEL, MOTEL, & CLUB EMPLOYEES UNION, 391 U.S. 492 (October Term 1967) No. 891</li>
<li>WISCONSIN V. FEDERAL POWER COM., 373 U.S. 294 (October Term 1962) No. 72</li>
<li>WORLD AIRWAYS, INC. V. NATIONAL MEDIATION BOARD, 391 U.S. 461 (October Term 1967) No. 800</li>
<li>W.M.C.A., INC. V. LOMENZO, 377 U.S. 633 (October Term 1963) No. 20</li>
<li>WRIGHT V. GEORGIA, 373 U.S. 284 (October Term 1962) No. 68</li>
<li>YOUNGSTOWN SHEET & TUBE CO. V. SAWYER, 343 U.S. 579 (October Term 1951) Nos. 744, 745</li>
</ul>In March 2005, on my first (and last) visit to the U.S. Supreme Court Library, with librarian Brian Stiglmeier’s help, I was able to browse their small collection of early transcripts and duplicate a few of them. All the copies I made are available under Transcripts.Supreme Court Audio Tapes2019-03-01T00:00:00-08:002019-03-01T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/03/supreme-court-audio<p>The U.S. Supreme Court began recording oral arguments in October 1955 on reel-to-reel tapes that it would
later send to the National Archives. Normally, such tapes are considered “masters” which are stored
in special climate-controlled rooms and which no one is permitted to touch – unless of course they work there.</p>
<p>
<img src="/assets/images/nara/tapes/267-Masters.jpg" alt="Charles DeArman, retired NARA archivist, holding a box of U.S. Supreme Court master tapes (July 2007)" />
<br /><span style="font-size: x-small">Charles DeArman, retired NARA archivist, holding a box of U.S. Supreme Court master tapes (July 2007)</span>
</p>
<p>If someone wants a copy of anything on those tapes, they have to fill out a form and wait for
the archives to produce a reference or “shelf” copy. In the old days, those reference copies would be
reel-to-reel tapes. As technology progressed, cassette tapes were used to hold reference copies,
and more recently, audio CDs.</p>
<p>However, if you’re lucky and someone else has already requested a tape you’re interested in,
then a reference copy may already be sitting on the shelf. For example, in March 2014, I had to request a reference copy of <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1983/82-485_11-08-1983.pdf">Keeton v. Hustler Magazine</a>, as no shelf copy was available. A few weeks later, when I visited the National
Archives in College Park, Maryland, NARA staff had added the CD to the compact stacks, and I was able to
copy the audio onto my laptop. And now anyone else who wants that particular audio recording can do the same.</p>
<p>In fact, most Supreme Court recordings from 1955 into the 1970s are currently available on
reel-to-reel reference tapes at College Park, sitting on shelves in compact stacks for anyone to access –
but not because someone had previously requested them all. Decades ago, when NARA was probably better funded,
they undertook a massive effort to duplicate all the original tapes, producing new masters, and then cutting
and relabeling the original tapes to produce what are now called reference or shelf copies.</p>
<p>So, when you pick up a Supreme Court audio tape from the 1950s or 1960s off the shelves at NARA,
you are holding an <em>original</em> tape, not a copy. Here’s a snapshot of one of the <em>many</em> rows of such tapes.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/nara/tapes/267.612-620.jpg" alt="RG 267 Reference Copies" /></p>
<p>Near the tapes are binders containing Accession Lists that can help you locate tapes you’re interested in. Unfortunately, the descriptions are not always sufficient. For example, the Court would occasionally record opinion announcements in the 1950s and 1960s, but it was rarely and sporadically done, and no one noted <em>which</em> opinions had been recorded. Sometimes you must cross-reference the dates with your own lists of Court activity.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/nara/1966/1966-Audio-Accession-List--Page07.png" alt="1966 Supreme Court Audio Accession List - Page 7" /></p>
<p>Back in 2007, when I mounted tape 267.613 labeled “ADMISSIONS TO THE BAR & OPINIONS OF THE COURT”, I discovered that a rather important opinion announcement, <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1965/22">Time, Inc. v. Hill</a>, had been recorded. I duplicated it and passed it on to The Oyez Project, which at the time, was missing that particular recording.</p>
<h2 id="about-that-keeton-v-hustler-recording">About That Keeton v. Hustler Recording</h2>
<p>As I mentioned earlier, there didn’t used to be a reference copy of Keeton v. Hustler, so I had to submit
a copy request to NARA identifying the recording. Keeton was listed in Record Group 267, Item Number 267.458,
Case Number 82-485.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/nara/1983/1983-Audio-Accession-List--Page04.jpg" alt="1983 Supreme Court Audio Accession List - Page 4" /></p>
<p>As you can see below, once the reference copy is generated, NARA shelves it chronologically with the rest of
the randomly requested reference copies. Their labeling standards have changed slightly over the years, and
you’re also at the mercy of sloppy researchers reshelving a reference tape/cassette/CD in the wrong location,
but in general, things are where they’re supposed to be.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/nara/1983/1983-Reference-Copies.jpg" alt="1983 Reference Copies" /></p>
<p>When you finally get the recording, you’ll often find other material recorded both before and after the
actual oral argument. For example, in Keeton, you can hear the Marshal’s traditional “Oyez Oyez Oyez” opening, followed by a handful of admissions to the Supreme Court Bar.</p>
<audio controls="" id="audio1" style="width:300px;">
<source src="/assets/audio/nara/267.458--82-485--Keeton_v_Hustler--Intro.mp3" type="audio/mpeg" />Your browser does not support the audio element.
</audio>
<p>The rest of the <a href="https://apps.oyez.org/player/#/burger8/oral_argument_audio/19772">Keeton</a> argument can be found on the <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-485">Oyez website</a>. You’ll notice that Oyez generally trims all their recordings to <em>just</em> the argument or the opinion, so you won’t hear the audio above in their copy.</p>
<p>What’s also interesting about the Keeton case is that, reportedly, Larry Flynt made an obscene outburst at the conclusion of the argument. Whatever transpired, however, didn’t get picked up by the Court’s microphones.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/news/1983-11-08--Spokane-Chronicle.png" alt="Spokane Chronicle November 1983" /></p>
<p>The incident may have piqued the interest of Justice White a few years later, because I also
found the following correspondence in the archives, stashed among all the Day Call sheets.</p>
<p><img src="/assets/images/nara/1986/1986-03-20--Supreme_Court_Curator--2014-04-21.jpg" alt="Supreme Court Curator 1986" /></p>The U.S. Supreme Court began recording oral arguments in October 1955 on reel-to-reel tapes that it would later send to the National Archives. Normally, such tapes are considered “masters” which are stored in special climate-controlled rooms and which no one is permitted to touch – unless of course they work there.SCDB: How Do I Love Thee?2019-02-18T00:00:00-08:002019-02-18T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/02/let-me-count-the-ways<p>The <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/index.php">Supreme Court Database</a>, aka SCDB<a href="#citing-to-the-scdb">*</a>,
is a enormously valuable resource. Other <a href="https://www.courtlistener.com/coverage/">sites</a>
have even referred to it as “the gold standard for high-quality legal information.”
It owes much of its reputation to Harold Spaeth, a political science professor who created
“<a href="http://artsandsciences.sc.edu/poli/juri/sct.htm">The Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database (nickname: ALLCOURT)</a>”
decades ago, and worked with the SCDB folks to help produce the modern version.
Sadly, Harold passed away in 2017.</p>
<p>So, regarding the SCDB: does it really meet the gold standard? I would certainly concede bronze or silver status perhaps, but not gold. And this is not because I think there’s another, better, or more deserving database out there. I simply feel that the <strong>Gold Standard</strong> should be reserved for a database that is not only without peer, but is also well-designed,
well-maintained, rigorously audited, and open-source, embracing transparency and community participation, and continuing
to evolve to solve old problems and new challenges. At the moment, SCDB has lots of room for improvement.</p>
<h2 id="let-me-count-the-ways">Let Me Count The Ways</h2>
<h3 id="1-docket-numbers">1. Docket Numbers</h3>
<p>Here are some examples of SCDB docket numbers for <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_jurisdiction_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States">Original Jurisdiction</a> cases:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>"5, Orig."
"126, ORIG."
"10 Original"
"8 (Original)"
"15 orig."
"6 ORIG"
"8 original"
"ORIG" and " ORIG"
"15 ORIG ORIG" (just to be sure?)
"No. 12, Original"
"No. 137, Orig."
"22O142"
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>Yes, the human eye can easily discern that these are all original jurisdiction docket numbers, but databases
are designed to be consumed by computers, not humans, and one of the presumptions for <em>any</em> database is well-defined
and strictly-adhered-to data formats. Even after consulting SCDB’s online codebook regarding the <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=docket">docket</a> field, this is all we’re told about such docket numbers:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Cases invoking the Court’s original jurisdiction have a number followed by the abbreviation, “Orig.”</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Well, apparently, there’s more to it than that.</p>
<p>There’s also a small problem with “Miscellaneous” cases; SCDB usually appends a single letter (“M”) to the docket number,
but sometimes there’s a space (eg, “61 M”) and sometimes not (eg, “133M”).</p>
<h3 id="2-consolidated-cases">2. Consolidated Cases</h3>
<p>The U.S. Supreme Court often “consolidates” multiple cases from lower courts into a single case. For
example, the docket number of the “lead” case in <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep540/usrep540093/usrep540093.pdf">McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (540 U.S. 93)</a> is 02-1674. However, the complete list of consolidated cases, by docket number, looks like this:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>02-1674,02-1675,02-1676,02-1702,02-1727,02-1733,02-1734,02-1740,02-1747,02-1753,02-1755,02-1756
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>and if you download SCDB’s “<a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/_brickFiles/2018_02/SCDB_2018_02_caseCentered_Docket.csv.zip">Cases Organized by Docket</a>” and search for <strong>540 U.S. 93</strong>, you will indeed see all 12 cases listed.</p>
<p>So what’s the problem? Consolidated cases are not <em>consistently</em> included.</p>
<p>For example, look at <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep431/usrep431395/usrep431395.pdf">East Texas Motor Freight System, Inc. v. Rodriguez (431 U.S. 395)</a>. Three cases were consolidated:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>75-718,75-651,75-715
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>but even when using SCDB’s “Cases Organized by Docket” files, all you’ll find is 75-718.</p>
<p>There may be some rationale at work here. For example, it’s possible that the disposition of the “non-lead” cases did not differ in any material way from the “lead” case, so the other cases were deemed superfluous. But there are numerous examples where the exact opposite is true (i.e., all consolidated cases recorded even when they all had the same disposition), so that would be a rationale of convenience rather than of principle.</p>
<p>The SCDB website simply says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Multiple docket numbers under a single case citation almost always contain the same issue as the lead case and differ only in the parties to the case and its origin and source.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>And this isn’t a trivial problem. When you look for the transcript in the <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep431/usrep431395/usrep431395.pdf">East Texas Motor Freight System</a> on the <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/archived_transcripts/1976">Supreme Court’s</a> website, it’s <em>only</em> listed as <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/pdfs/transcripts/1976/75-651_75-715_75-718_01-10-1977.pdf">Teamsters v. Rodriguez, No. 75-651</a>. Not as 75-715 or 75-718, but as 75-651 – a docket number which you will <em>not</em> find in the SCDB.</p>
<h3 id="3-decision-dates">3. Decision Dates</h3>
<p>For a case’s <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=dateDecision">Date of Decision</a>, the SCDB online codebook says:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>This variable contains the year, month, and day that the Court announced its decision in the case. For volumes 2-107 of the U.S. Reports (1791-1882), we relied on <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments</a>, prepared by Anne Ashmore of the Library of the Supreme Court, because many early reporters do not list the date of decision.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Importing dates from a Supreme Court document should have been an error-free process, yet it wasn’t.
Take the case of <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep008/usrep008316/usrep008316.pdf">United States v. McDowell (8 U.S. 316)</a>. SCDB claims it was decided on March 7, 1807, but the Supreme Court’s “Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments” document – which SCDB says it relied upon – indicates March 7, 1808. I have found dozens of
similar mistakes.</p>
<p>And these kinds of mistakes aren’t just limited to those older cases. Look at <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep488/usrep488272/usrep488272.pdf">Perry v. Leeke (488 U.S. 272)</a>. It was decided January 10, 1989, but SCDB lists the decision date as “1/1/1989”. Even worse, SCDB lists the argument date for <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep347/usrep347483/usrep347483.pdf">Brown v. Board of Education (347 U.S. 483)</a> as “12/8/1952”, but in fact, arguments began on December 9, 1952 and lasted three days.</p>
<p>There is also another, subtler problem with cases listed in the “Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments” document:
the decision date of a number of cases could not be precisely identified, even by the Supreme Court’s librarian, so only
the date of the term was listed. This occurred, for example, in <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep009/usrep009321/usrep009321.pdf">Welsh v. Mandeville (9 U.S. 321)</a>, where the decision date was listed as “Feb. term 1809”.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, SCDB appears to have morphed such dates into the first day of the first month of the term, resulting in a date (e.g., February 1, 1809) that appears to be precise but is almost certainly incorrect.</p>
<p>NOTE: As a public service, I have extracted all the decision dates <em>and</em> argument dates from the Supreme Court’s
<a href="/sources/scotus/dates/SCOTUS_Dates_of_Decisions-2008-02-21.pdf">Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments</a> and produced an easy-to-use
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/blob/master/sources/ld/dates.csv">spreadsheet</a>. I recommend using this file instead of the one on the
<a href="https://free.law/2011/05/25/updated-supreme-court-case-dates-and-the-first-release-of-early-scotus-data-in-machine-readable-form/">Free Law</a> website,
because the last time I checked, the dates in their file were badly scrambled, and it didn’t include any argument dates.
The dates on the first few lines of their file:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>2 U.S. 401|West v. Barnes|2|401|1791-08-17
2 U.S. 401|Vanstophorst v. Maryland|2|401|1791-08-17
2 U.S. 401|Oswald v. New York|2|401|1792-02-14
...
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>clearly do not match those provided in the Court’s <a href="/sources/scotus/dates/SCOTUS_Dates_of_Decisions-2008-02-21.pdf">PDF</a>.</p>
<p>Here’s a list of all the corrections we’ve made to <em>dateDecision</em> in SCDB thus far, with links to the source material
used, so that they can all be verified. This is a degree of transparency that you will not find on the SCDB website.</p>
<ul>
<li>Dewhurst v. Coulthard (3 U.S. 409): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1798-006-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, February 1, 1799 to 1799-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Blair v. Miller (4 U.S. 21): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1800-006-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, August 1, 1800 to 1800-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Talbot v. Ship Amelia (4 U.S. 34): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1801-002-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, August 15, 1801 to Friday, August 15, 1800 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. McDowell (8 U.S. 316): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1807-025-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, March 7, 1807 to Monday, March 7, 1808 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Dawson’s Lessee v. Godfrey (8 U.S. 321): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1807-039-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, March 15, 1807 to Tuesday, March 15, 1808 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Welsh v. Mandeville (9 U.S. 321): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1808-009-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, February 1, 1809 to 1809-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Riddle & Co. v. Mandeville (10 U.S. 86): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1809-046-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, February 1, 1810 to 1810-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Ex parte Wilson (10 U.S. 52): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1809-045-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, February 1, 1810 to 1810-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Hawthorne v. United States (11 U.S. 107): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1812-007-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, February 20, 1812 to 1812-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Gracie v. Maryland Ins. Co. (12 U.S. 84): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1814-013-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, February 25, 1814 to Saturday, February 19, 1814 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>The George (14 U.S. 408): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1815-041-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, March 23, 1816 to 1816-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>The Experiment (17 U.S. 84): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1819-001-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, February 1, 1819 to 1819-02 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Miller v. Kerr (20 U.S. 1): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1822-019-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, March 15, 1822 to Thursday, March 15, 1821 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>The Antelope (23 U.S. 66): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1825-017-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, March 25, 1825 to Tuesday, March 15, 1825 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Dufau v. Couprey’s Heirs (31 U.S. 170): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1832-023-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, February 3, 1832 to Thursday, February 3, 1831 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Boyle v. Zacharie (31 U.S. 348): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1832-022-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, February 1, 1832 to 1832-01 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. Huertas (34 U.S. 171): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1835-033-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, March 14, 1835 to Friday, March 14, 1834 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. Clarke (34 U.S. 168): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1835-032-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, March 14, 1835 to Friday, March 14, 1834 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Life & Fire Ins. Co. of N. Y. v. Adams (34 U.S. 571): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1834-065-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, January 1, 1835 to 1835-01 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Hagan v. Foison (35 U.S. 160): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1836-041-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, February 26, 1836 to 1836-01 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Ex parte Barry (43 U.S. 65): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1844-001-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, January 1, 1844 to 1844-01 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Commercial Bank of Cincinnati v. Buckingham’s Executors (46 U.S. 317): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1847-036-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, March 15, 1847 to Friday, March 5, 1847 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Roberts v. Cooper (60 U.S. 373): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1856-057-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, March 5, 1857 to 1856-12 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Hemmenway v. Fisher (61 U.S. 255): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1858-002-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, December 24, 1858 to Thursday, December 24, 1857 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. Fossatt (62 U.S. 445): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1858-069-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, March 11, 1859 to Friday, March 11, 1859 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. Fossatt (62 U.S. 445): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1858-054-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, February 28, 1859 to Friday, March 11, 1859 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Hogg v. Ruffner (66 U.S. 115): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1862-006-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Tuesday, December 23, 1862 to Monday, December 23, 1861 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Bronson v. Railroad Co. (67 U.S. 524): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1862-045-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, March 2, 1863 to Monday, February 16, 1863 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>The Cornelius (70 U.S. 214): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1865-016-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, January 26, 1866 to Monday, January 29, 1866 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Litchfield v. Railroad Co. (74 U.S. 270): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1868-040-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, February 25, 1869 to Monday, February 15, 1869 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Reeside v. United States (75 U.S. 38): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1868-090-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, April 25, 1869 to Thursday, April 15, 1869 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>The Johnson (76 U.S. 146): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1869-057-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, February 21, 1870 to Monday, February 21, 1870 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Boylan v. United States (77 U.S. 58): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1869-169-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, March 18, 1870 to Monday, March 28, 1870 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>HARTFORD FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY v. ISSAC VAN DUZER (76 U.S. 784n): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1869-205-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, April 30, 1870 to Monday, April 25, 1870 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Ex parte Perry (102 U.S. 183): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1880-028-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, November 24, 1880 to Monday, November 24, 1879 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Bennecke v. Insurance Co. (105 U.S. 355): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-155-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, March 31, 1882 to Monday, March 13, 1882 (see <a href="https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf">Dates of Decisions</a>)</li>
<li>Medsker v. Bonebrake (108 U.S. 66): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-227-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, October 1, 1882 to Monday, March 5, 1883 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep108/usrep108066/usrep108066.pdf">108 U.S. 66</a>)</li>
<li>Stebbins v. Duncan (108 U.S. 32): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-225-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, October 1, 1882 to Monday, March 5, 1883 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep108/usrep108032/usrep108032.pdf">108 U.S. 32</a>)</li>
<li>Connecticut Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Cushman (108 U.S. 51): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-226-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, October 1, 1882 to Monday, March 5, 1883 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep108/usrep108051/usrep108051.pdf">108 U.S. 51</a>)</li>
<li>The Nuestra Señora de Regla (108 U.S. 92): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-228-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, October 1, 1882 to Monday, March 12, 1883 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep108/usrep108092/usrep108092.pdf">108 U.S. 92</a>)</li>
<li>Western Pacific R. Co. v. United States (108 U.S. 510): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1881-229-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Sunday, October 1, 1882 to Monday, May 7, 1883 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep108/usrep108510/usrep108510.pdf">108 U.S. 510</a>)</li>
<li>Slidell v. Grandjean (111 U.S. 412): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1883-002-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, October 1, 1883 to Monday, March 3, 1884 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep111/usrep111412/usrep111412.pdf">111 U.S. 412</a>)</li>
<li>UNITED STATES v. ALABAMA (123 U.S. 39): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1886-309-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, October 1, 1887 to Monday, October 24, 1887 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep123/usrep123032/usrep123032.pdf">123 U.S. 39</a>)</li>
<li>ANDREWS v. CONE (124 U.S. 720): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1886-311-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, October 1, 1887 to Monday, February 20, 1888 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep124/usrep124694/usrep124694.pdf">124 U.S. 720</a>)</li>
<li>McCormick v. Graham’s Administrator (129 U.S. 1): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1888-078-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, January 10, 1887 to Monday, January 7, 1889 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep129/usrep129001/usrep129001.pdf">129 U.S. 1</a>)</li>
<li>St. Paul, M. & M. R. Co. v. Wenzel (139 U.S. 23): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1890-066-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, October 1, 1890 to Monday, March 2, 1891 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep139/usrep139023/usrep139023.pdf">139 U.S. 23</a>)</li>
<li>Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. Baugh (149 U.S. 368): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1892-229-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Tuesday, May 1, 1894 to Monday, May 1, 1893 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep149/usrep149368/usrep149368.pdf">149 U.S. 368</a>)</li>
<li>Morgan Envelope Co. v. Albany Perforated Wrapping Paper Co. (152 U.S. 425): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1893-182-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, March 8, 1894 to Monday, March 19, 1894 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep152/usrep152425/usrep152425.pdf">152 U.S. 425</a>)</li>
<li>The Elfrida (172 U.S. 186): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1898-026-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Saturday, October 1, 1898 to Monday, December 12, 1898 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep172/usrep172186/usrep172186.pdf">172 U.S. 186</a>)</li>
<li>Independent Wireless Telegraph Co. v. Radio Corp. of America (270 U.S. 84): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1925-064-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, January 11, 1926 to Monday, March 1, 1926 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep270/usrep270084/usrep270084.pdf">270 U.S. 84</a>)</li>
<li>Indian Motocycle Co. v. United States (283 U.S. 570): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1930-075-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, January 5, 1931 to Monday, May 25, 1931 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep283/usrep283570/usrep283570.pdf">283 U.S. 570</a>)</li>
<li>Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co. of America (350 U.S. 198): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1955-020-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, January 6, 1956 to Monday, January 16, 1956 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep350/usrep350198/usrep350198.pdf">350 U.S. 198</a>)</li>
<li>Swann v. Adams (383 U.S. 210): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1965-056-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, February 28, 1966 to Friday, February 25, 1966 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep383/usrep383210/usrep383210.pdf">383 U.S. 210</a>)</li>
<li>Whitehill v. Elkins (389 U.S. 54): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1967-014-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, November 16, 1967 to Monday, November 6, 1967 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep389/usrep389054/usrep389054.pdf">389 U.S. 54</a>)</li>
<li>Lines v. Frederick (400 U.S. 18): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1970-006-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, November 12, 1970 to Monday, November 9, 1970 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep400/usrep400018/usrep400018.pdf">400 U.S. 18</a>)</li>
<li>NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co. (404 U.S. 138): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1971-018-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, December 6, 1971 to Wednesday, December 8, 1971 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep404/usrep404138/usrep404138.pdf">404 U.S. 138</a>)</li>
<li>Givhan v. Western Line Consol. School Dist. (439 U.S. 410): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1978-025-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Thursday, January 4, 1979 to Tuesday, January 9, 1979 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep439/usrep439410/usrep439410.pdf">439 U.S. 410</a>)</li>
<li>Harris v. Rivera (454 U.S. 339): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1981-017-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, December 4, 1981 to Monday, December 14, 1981 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep454/usrep454339/usrep454339.pdf">454 U.S. 339</a>)</li>
<li>Charles D. Bonanno Linen Service, Inc. v. NLRB (454 U.S. 404): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1981-024-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Monday, January 11, 1982 to Tuesday, January 12, 1982 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep454/usrep454404/usrep454404.pdf">454 U.S. 404</a>)</li>
<li>United States v. Clark (454 U.S. 555): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1981-028-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, January 13, 1982 to Tuesday, January 12, 1982 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep454/usrep454555/usrep454555.pdf">454 U.S. 555</a>)</li>
<li>Dickman v. Commissioner (465 U.S. 330): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1983-037-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Tuesday, February 21, 1984 to Wednesday, February 22, 1984 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep465/usrep465330/usrep465330.pdf">465 U.S. 330</a>)</li>
<li>Consolidated Rail Corporation v. Darrone (465 U.S. 624): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1983-046-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Friday, February 24, 1984 to Tuesday, February 28, 1984 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep465/usrep465624/usrep465624.pdf">465 U.S. 624</a>)</li>
<li>Ake v. Oklahoma (470 U.S. 68): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1984-033-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Wednesday, February 20, 1985 to Tuesday, February 26, 1985 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep470/usrep470068/usrep470068.pdf">470 U.S. 68</a>)</li>
<li>Old Chief v. United States (519 U.S. 172): <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/analysisCaseListing.php?cid=1996-013-01">dateDecision</a> changed from Tuesday, January 14, 1997 to Tuesday, January 7, 1997 (see <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep519/usrep519172/usrep519172.pdf">519 U.S. 172</a>)</li>
</ul>
<h3 id="4-argument-and-reargument-dates">4. Argument and Reargument Dates</h3>
<p>Some cases are argued over a period of multiple days (and not necessarily consecutive days). An early example of
this is <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep003/usrep003133/usrep003133.pdf">Talbot v. Janson (3 U.S. 133)</a>,
which was argued over the course of ten days:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>Thursday, August 6, 1795
Friday, August 7, 1795
Saturday, August 8, 1795
Monday, August 10, 1795
Tuesday, August 11, 1795
Wednesday, August 12, 1795
Thursday, August 13, 1795
Friday, August 14, 1795
Tuesday, August 18, 1795
Wednesday, August 19, 1795
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>This also occurs with some regularity in the “modern” era.
See <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep387/usrep387397/usrep387397.pdf">American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co. (387 U.S. 397)</a>, which was argued:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>Thursday, April 13, 1967
Monday, April 17, 1967
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>However, recording all the dates of an oral argument (or even just the <em>number</em> of argument days) didn’t seem to
interest Harold Spaeth much, because his “ALLCOURT” database (SCDB’s predecessor) provided only an <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">ORAL</code> field
for the first date of argument.</p>
<p>Despite my best efforts ten years ago to convince SCDB to consider broader research interests and to at
least <em>enable</em> the coding of all argument dates for a case, all they did was rename Spaeth’s variable to
<a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=dateArgument">dateArgument</a> and continue the old practice,
without justification:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On some occasions, oral argument extended over more than a single day. In such cases, only the first date is specified.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>NOTE: For the record, SCDB incorrectly reports that <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep387/usrep387397/usrep387397.pdf">387 U.S. 397</a> was argued on March 13, 1967, so we have more than a completeness problem – we have
the usual accuracy problems as well.</p>
<p>Then there’s the problem of multiple rearguments. Once again, the Spaeth “ALLCOURT” database dealt with this,
but in the same limited fashion, by providing a single <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">REORAL</code> field, and SCDB followed suit with its
<a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=dateRearg">dateRearg</a> variable:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>On those infrequent occasions when the Court orders that a case be reargued, this variable specifies the date of such argument following the same day, month, and year sequence used in the preceding variable (dateArgue).</p>
</blockquote>
<p>The limitation here is even worse than before, because not only can a reargument span multiple days, but there can
also be <em>multiple</em> rearguments. Take a look at <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep401/usrep401077/usrep401077.pdf">Boyle v. Landry (401 U.S. 77)</a>. The second reargument on November 16, 1970 is nowhere to be found in SCDB.</p>
<p>SCDB also doesn’t comprehensively list cases that were granted, argued, and then dismissed without an opinion.
This can happen when the Court “DIGs” (dismisses as improvidently granted) a case, or when it dismisses a case that
has later become moot. To be clear, I’m referring to cases that were fully briefed and argued and <em>then</em>
dismissed, which makes them significantly different from the many petitions that are routinely denied, as well as
the occasional petition that is granted and then dismissed before argument.</p>
<p>This is not to say that SCDB doesn’t track <em>any</em> DIG’ed cases, but merely that its recording of them is haphazard.
For example, <a href="http://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep393/usrep393219/usrep393219.pdf">Stiles v. United States (393 U.S. 219)</a>, argued November 20, 1968, is not listed in SCDB, while <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep537/usrep537001/usrep537001.pdf">Ford Motor Co. v. McCauley (537 U.S. 1)</a>, argued October 7, 2000, is listed.
The failure to record all such cases frustrates a variety of research, such as the accurate tracking of oral argument activity, the frequency of DIGs, etc.</p>
<p>As an aside, it’s also not a simple matter to identify <em>just</em> DIG’ed cases. SCDB has a <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=caseDisposition">caseDisposition</a> variable that is generally set to 9 (“petition denied or appeal dismissed”) in such cases, but that value is also used in other cases, such as <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep526/usrep526122/usrep526122.pdf">Schwarz v. National Security Agency (526 U.S. 122)</a>, where the case was granted
and a <em>per curiam</em> opinion was issued denying petitioner’s motion.</p>
<h3 id="5-natural-courts">5. Natural Courts</h3>
<p>A <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=naturalCourt">Natural Court</a>, as the SCDB online codebook explains, is:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>[A] period during which no personnel change occurs. Scholars have subdivided them into
“strong” and “weak” natural courts, but no convention exists as to the dates on which they
begin and end. Options include 1) date of confirmation, 2) date of seating, 3) cases decided
after seating, and 4) cases argued and decided after seating. A strong natural court is
delineated by the addition of a new justice or the departure of an incumbent. A weak natural
court, by comparison, is any group of sitting justices even if lengthy vacancies occurred.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Although one could quibble with the SCDB’s natural court definitions (which I’m sometimes tempted to do), the larger problem
is the accuracy of the dates for the courts that SCDB has chosen.</p>
<p>For example, it lists the transition between the Warren and Burger courts like so:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>1411 Warren 11 May 14, 1969 - June 22, 1969
1501 Burger 1 June 23, 1969 - June 08, 1970
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>However, SCDB also lists a series of decisions handed down on June 23, 1969:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>1969-06-23: North Carolina v. Pearce [413,418] (395 U.S. 711)
1969-06-23: Chimel v. California [770] (395 U.S. 752)
1969-06-23: Benton v. Maryland [201] (395 U.S. 784)
1969-06-23: Von Cleef v. New Jersey [837] (395 U.S. 814)
1969-06-23: Shipley v. California [540 Misc.] (395 U.S. 818)
1969-06-23: Moya v. DeBaca [996 Misc.] (395 U.S. 825)
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>And while it would be very impressive for the Court to hand down <em>six</em> decisions on the <em>first</em> day under a new
Chief Justice, the reality is that June 23, not June 22, was Chief Justice Earl Warren’s last day.</p>
<p>And this mistake with the “Warren 11” court isn’t an isolated “one-off”. There are similar problems with
the “Warren 4”, “Warren 5”, “Warren 6”, and “Warren 7” courts, not to mention “Stone 2” or “Rehnquist 1”,
among others.</p>
<p>And this isn’t merely a problem with the natural court dates. Numerous cases are filed under one natural court
even though they were decided under another.</p>
<p>Look at <a href="https://cdn.loc.gov/service/ll/usrep/usrep317/usrep317049/usrep317049.pdf">Braverman v. United States (317 U.S. 49)</a>. It was argued on October 21, 1942 and decided on November 9, 1942, which would put it squarely
in SCDB’s “Stone 1” natural court. But it’s coded in SCDB as being in the “Stone 2” (1202) natural court.</p>
<h3 id="6-terms">6. Terms</h3>
<p>How SCDB defines the <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=term">Term</a> in which a case was decided is
problematic: it uses a simple number (a year), which is insufficient to properly identify the <em>actual</em> term
in which a case was decided.</p>
<p>Specifically, until 1802, there were <em>two</em> terms per year. This is why my project has adopted a string
format for Supreme Court terms (“YYYY-MM”) rather than an ambiguous numeric format (YYYY).</p>
<p>The ambiguity didn’t stop in 1802, either. In 1844, there were two terms as well, because after the normal
January 1844 term began, the Act of June 1844 changed the start of subsequent terms to December. Apparently out
of habit, the Court still called these terms “January Terms”, but that didn’t change the fact that, beginning
in December 1844, the Court started churning out new opinions.</p>
<p>SCDB, on the other hand, ignores the actual dates that the Court operated, and instead pretends that the Court’s
work started every January – up until 1850, when the Court finally decided to change what it called the terms.
As a result, SCDB implies there two terms in 1850, when in fact, there were not.</p>
<p>SCDB apologists will argue that, as long as the ambiguity of the <strong>Term</strong> variable is properly documented,
researchers can work around its limitations by also examining the <strong>dateDecision</strong> variable and checking for
all the above conditions. Of course, the logical extension of that argument would be to eliminate the <strong>Term</strong>
variable entirely, because obviously the precise term of <em>any</em> case can be determined by applying a complicated
set of rules to <strong>dateDecision</strong>.</p>
<p>Harold Spaeth’s <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">TERM</code> variable didn’t suffer from this ambiguity, because his “ALLCOURT” database didn’t deal
with cases before the Warren Court.</p>
<h3 id="7-undocumented-values">7. Undocumented Values</h3>
<p>As I’ve <a href="/blog/2018/12/21/">previously documented</a>, there are some variables, such as <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=caseOrigin">caseOrigin</a> containing undocumented values (e.g., 157, 158, 161, etc).</p>
<p>And then there’s <a href="http://scdb.wustl.edu/documentation.php?var=lawMinor">lawMinor</a>, a free-form string that has
become very problematic. Here’s a small subset of the values, to give you a sense of the problems:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>"unidentifed act of congress",
"unidentifed act of congress, 1828",
"unidentifiable",
"unidentified",
"unidentified 1807 act of congress",
"unidentified act of congeress",
"unidentified act of congress",
"unidentified act of Congress of 1824",
"unidentified act of congress, 1824, sec. 32",
"unidentified acts of congress",
"unidentified federal statute",
"unidentified law",
"unidentified patent law, sec. 15",
"unidentified RS",
"unidentified sdtatute",
"unidentified statute",
"unidentified US laws",
"unidentified US statute",
"Uniformed Services Former Spouses' Protection Act 10 U.S.C. 1408",
"unknown",
"unpaid opium tax",
"unrestricted sale of allotments",
"unspecified",
"UNSPECIFIED",
"unspecified act of congress",
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>There are <em>lots</em> of duplicate values, varying only in form, not in substance, as well as <em>lots</em> of typos.</p>
<h3 id="8-missing-cases">8. Missing Cases</h3>
<p>When cross-referencing the cases in SCDB with other reputable sources (eg, data extracted from the Supreme Court’s
Case Citation Finder), I’ve also come across a number of cases which, even though they were considered “cite-worthy”,
do not appear in SCDB.</p>
<p>I’ve logged some of those instances on my website (e.g.,
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/blob/master/logs/missingCases.csv">missing cases</a>
and <a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/blob/master/logs/unknownCitations.csv">unknown citations</a>).
I realize there are many “back of the book” cases that don’t merit attention
(e.g. denials of cert), but that’s not true in <em>all</em> such cases, so perhaps SCDB should consider
creating a second much simpler table of cases that cites all the cases it has deliberately omitted.</p>
<h3 id="9-undocumented-changes">9. Undocumented Changes</h3>
<p>This is a broad category, encompassing every field of every record, and it’s best illustrated with a simple example.</p>
<p>The case “Ableman v. Booth (59 U.S. 479)” is recorded in SCDB with an argument date of “1856-01-04”. This is at odds
with the argument data reported in the Supreme Court’s “Dates of Supreme Court Decisions and Arguments” document, which
reports <em>no</em> argument date for that case. Remember, that’s the document that SCDB <em>explicitly</em> says it relies on for
dates in early cases such as this.</p>
<p>One interpretation is that this is simply an SCDB error, in which case the argument date should be deleted from the next
release. However, typos typically manifest themselves as a mistake in one or two digits, not as an entirely new value
appearing out of nowhere.</p>
<p>Another interpretation is that SCDB, relying on some other (unspecified) primary source, discovered that the case had
<em>indeed</em> been argued on January 4, 1856.</p>
<p>And we have <em>no idea</em> which is the correct answer. It’s also quite likely that, at this moment, no one working on SCDB
knows the correct answer, either.</p>
<p>This is the fundamental problem with Andrew Martin’s assertion that detailed differentials, change logs, etc, don’t matter,
and that end-users “can perform the differentials just as well as we can.” That is absolutely true, and also absolutely
meaningless. Without any explanation to accompany the growing number of corrections that are being made over time, the
database becomes increasingly impossible to validate, because the sources of the underlying data, as well as any changes
made to that data and the reasons for those changes, are kept private – if they are kept at all.</p>
<h2 id="epilogue">Epilogue</h2>
<p>I long ago advocated for greater transparency in what SCDB chooses to add or correct in its database, including
change logs with every release. These days, an even better step forward for SCDB would be to do what I’ve done here,
which is to create an open-source repository containing copies of all the data sources being used, along with the
scripts used to process them.</p>
<p>Issues like those with <a href="#6-terms">Terms</a> arose simply because SCDB didn’t fully consider the impact of
older cases on a design that it inherited from Harold Spaeth’s “ALLCOURT” database. Other issues, like
those with <a href="#4-argument-and-reargument-dates">Argument and Reargument Dates</a>, could be considered a failure
of imagination – <em>except</em> that we discussed dating issues with SCDB principals (Andrew Martin and Troy DeArmitt)
at least ten years ago, and the only headway we were able to make was a vague commitment to consider
“database extensions” that would allow groups like Oyez to add more comprehensive oral argument information
(e.g., dates, names of advocates, etc). As far as I can tell, that never happened.</p>
<p>In any event, it’s never too late to fix problems. Instead of making excuses, justifications,
or brushing off good suggestions as “too much work”, SCDB should start acknowledging problems and create a
roadmap for improving and evolving the database, defining new variables to address old issues and new features,
deprecating problematic variables, and above all, adding rigorous data validation rules and cross-checks to
eliminate mistakes and prevent future errors.</p>
<p>I think if SCDB really wants to be a Gold Standard, it also needs to stop being a siloed operation, performing all its
updates behind a veil of secrecy, and making the world wait with bated breath for each new release. As an academic
endeavour, more knowledge – not less – should be one of the goals, as well as encouraging cooperation and participation
among all interested parties.</p>
<p>Or, SCDB can quietly extract whatever it wants here, without telling me or anyone else, and then roll
out its next release with the usual (and completely useless) notation: <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">minor corrections</code>. And neither
I nor anyone else will have any incentive to help again.</p>
<h3 id="citing-to-the-scdb">Citing to the SCDB</h3>
<p>Since we use the SCDB, we shall cite it. In fact, we shall go one step better, and <em>recite</em> their
<a href="http://supremecourtdatabase.org/documentation.php?var=cite">instructions</a> on how one should cite it:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>To cite to the Supreme Court Database, please employ either of the following:</p>
</blockquote>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>Harold J. Spaeth, Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin, Jeffrey A. Segal,
Theodore J. Ruger, and Sara C. Benesh. 2018 Supreme Court Database,
Version 2018 Release 02. URL: http://Supremecourtdatabase.org
Harold J. Spaeth, Lee Epstein, et al. 2018 Supreme Court Database,
Version 2018 Release 2. URL: http://Supremecourtdatabase.org
</code></pre></div></div>
<blockquote>
<p>Please be sure to include the specific Version Number; e.g., ‘Version 2018 Release 02’ in your citation
as this will indicate the particular version of the database being employed at the time of your reference.
This matter is of great importance as the database will be updated with newly announced decisions,
corrections, and the addition of new data for existing cases.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Note that indicating which release you are using is a matter “<em>of great importance</em>”.</p>
<p>Which is puzzling, since SCDB consistently refuses to describe, list, or otherwise explain exactly how
any release differs from any other release. The differences are invariably described as nothing more than
“minor corrections” – which can’t be right if they are also “of great importance”.</p>The Supreme Court Database, aka SCDB*, is a enormously valuable resource. Other sites have even referred to it as “the gold standard for high-quality legal information.” It owes much of its reputation to Harold Spaeth, a political science professor who created “The Original U.S. Supreme Court Judicial Database (nickname: ALLCOURT)” decades ago, and worked with the SCDB folks to help produce the modern version. Sadly, Harold passed away in 2017.More Advocate Data2019-02-17T00:00:00-08:002019-02-17T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/02/more-advocate-data<p>One of our long-term goals is to produce a more accurate and
comprehensive list of <a href="/advocates/top100/">Top Supreme Court Advocates</a>.
But to do that, we need lots of data – lots of <em>good</em> data.</p>
<p>And one of the cornerstones of good data is being able to cross-reference it with
lots of other data, so to that end, this repository now contains text extracted from all the
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/tree/master/sources/loc/volumes">U.S. Reports</a>
downloaded from the Library of Congress, along with text extracted from all the
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/tree/master/sources/scotus/transcripts">Transcripts</a>
downloaded from the U.S. Supreme Court website, and all
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/tree/master/sources/oyez/cases">Case Data</a>
(from the 1955 term onward) extracted from the Oyez website.</p>
<p>Our initial focus is to match all <a href="/transcripts/scotus/">SCOTUS Transcripts</a> with their
corresponding SCDB records. A list of those transcripts is being stored in a
<a href="https://github.com/jeffpar/lonedissent/blob/master/sources/ld/transcripts.csv">spreadsheet</a>,
which includes a <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">notes</code> field documenting any corrections. Next, we’ll cross-reference
that list with Oyez’s case data.</p>
<p>One could also wish that the resolution and quality of the PDFs stored at the
Library of Congress was higher, so that the raw text was less error-prone, but our goal
isn’t to recreate the original text. Instead, the plan is to simply use the raw text
as another set of signals, helping us fill in gaps and find/fix errors in the
<a href="/blog/2019/02/18/">Supreme Court Database</a>.</p>One of our long-term goals is to produce a more accurate and comprehensive list of Top Supreme Court Advocates. But to do that, we need lots of data – lots of good data.It’s Lonely At The Top2019-02-12T00:00:00-08:002019-02-12T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/02/its-lonely-at-the-top<p>Recently, I took renewed interest in an old topic: lawyers who have argued the most cases at the U.S.
Supreme Court, aka <a href="/advocates/top100/">Top Advocates</a>.</p>
<p>I first became interested in this after listening to a Supreme Court oral argument back
in 2006 on the <a href="https://www.oyez.org">Oyez</a> website. The oral argument was from 2002,
in case called <a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2002/01-1015">Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc.</a>,
and the lawyer arguing on behalf of the government was a somewhat familiar voice:
<a href="/advocates/top100/lawrence_wallace">Lawrence Wallace</a>.</p>
<p>What caught me by surprise when listening to that particular argument were some preliminary comments made by
Chief Justice William Rehnquist, noting that it was Mr. Wallace’s 157th argument, and that no other lawyer in
the 20th century or since had argued more times at the Court.</p>
<p>I was working as a consultant on the <a href="https://www.oyez.org">Oyez</a> website at the time, where efforts were
till underway to produce digital copies of all Supreme Court oral arguments recorded on reel-to-reel tapes
dating back to 1955, and I decided to see if all of Mr. Wallace’s arguments were in the collection – all 157
of them.</p>
<p>The biggest problem was the lack of complete (and accurate) information in the Oyez database – a problem that
persists to this day. For example, if you search <a href="https://www.oyez.org">Oyez</a> for “Lawrence Wallace”, you will
not find all 157 arguments. This is largely a problem of time and effort. All the information is buried in
the many volumes of <a href="https://www.loc.gov/collections/united-states-reports/">U.S. Reports</a>, but it takes time
to extract and record it.</p>
<p>Obviously, the Supreme Court itself has very detailed records on these and other matters, but sadly,
they don’t provide all their data to the public. Imagine that – a public institution that doesn’t share
information with the public. Or rather, shares only what it considers essential, and only on occasions that
it deems appropriate.</p>
<p>In any event, as of late 2006, I did eventually track down all of Mr. Wallace’s arguments, just in time for
Jerry Goldman and me to meet him and talk about his lengthy career in the Office of the Solicitor General. That
interview occurred on December 4, 2006 – the same day Jerry and I were also at the Court to watch arguments in
<a href="https://www.oyez.org/cases/2006/05-908">Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1</a>.
It was a busy day.</p>
<p>I’m still lamenting the state of Supreme Court advocate data on the web, but until I have more time to really
dig into it, here’s my initial list of some of the U.S. Supreme Court’s <a href="/advocates/top100/">Top Advocates</a>.</p>Recently, I took renewed interest in an old topic: lawyers who have argued the most cases at the U.S. Supreme Court, aka Top Advocates.Loner Parties2019-01-06T00:00:00-08:002019-01-06T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/01/loner-parties<p>When is a Lone Dissent not a Lone Dissent? When multiple Lone Dissents are handed down on the <em>same day</em>.</p>
<p>And how often do these “Loner Parties” happen? <a href="/trivia/parties/">More often</a> than you’d think.</p>
<p>“One” may be “the loneliest number that you’ll ever do,” but let’s not forget that “Two can be as bad as one….”</p>When is a Lone Dissent not a Lone Dissent? When multiple Lone Dissents are handed down on the same day.Loners by Justice2019-01-04T00:00:00-08:002019-01-04T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2019/01/loners-by-justice<p>When the <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">gulp loners</code> task is run for all available terms:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>gulp loners --term=1790-02 --end=2017-10
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>it also produces an index of all <a href="/justices/loners/">Justices with Lone Dissents</a>.
The index is sorted by the number of lone dissents per Justice, from largest to smallest.</p>
<p>Phase One of the Lone Dissent Project is now complete.</p>When the gulp loners task is run for all available terms:Loners by Term2018-12-22T00:00:00-08:002018-12-22T00:00:00-08:00https://lonedissent.org/blog/2018/12/loners-by-term<p>We just ran our new <code class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge">gulp loners</code> task:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>gulp loners --term=2003
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>and we now have our first <a href="/cases/loners/">Loners</a> entry: the <a href="/cases/loners/2003-10">2003 Term</a>.</p>
<p>It’s very minimalistic at the moment, but more meat will be added to the bones soon.</p>
<h2 id="january-4-2019-update">January 4, 2019 Update</h2>
<p>All terms have now been processed:</p>
<div class="language-plaintext highlighter-rouge"><div class="highlight"><pre class="highlight"><code>gulp loners --term=1790-02 --end=2017-10
</code></pre></div></div>
<p>and the <a href="/cases/loners/">Loners</a> page has been updated to display all U.S. Supreme Court terms in which
there was one or more Lone Dissent.</p>We just ran our new gulp loners task: