Supreme Court Research Methods: Tracking Cases in the Digital Age

The Anatomy of a Supreme Court Case: A Journey from Petition to Precedent

The Supreme Court of the United States stands as the final arbiter of law in the nation, a role that imbues its every action with profound significance. Understanding how a case navigates the labyrinthine procedures of the Court is the foundational first step for any researcher, student, or citizen seeking to follow its work. The journey of a case from a lower court dispute to a binding national precedent is a highly structured, selective, and deliberative process. This section deconstructs that journey, explaining the constitutional underpinnings and procedural milestones that define the lifecycle of a Supreme Court case.

The Path to the Court: Understanding Original and Appellate Jurisdiction

The authority of the Supreme Court to hear cases, known as its jurisdiction, is derived directly from Article III of the U.S. Constitution. This jurisdiction is divided into two distinct categories: original and appellate.  

Appellate Jurisdiction (The Primary Path) The vast majority of cases that come before the Supreme Court do so under its appellate jurisdiction. This means the Court is not conducting a trial but is instead reviewing the decision of a lower court to determine if a legal error was made. These cases typically arrive after they have been decided by a U.S. Court of Appeals or, in some instances, the highest court of a given state, provided the state court’s decision involves a question of federal law or the U.S. Constitution. The Supreme Court’s role as the ultimate court of appeal makes it the primary mechanism for ensuring uniformity and correctness in the interpretation of federal law across the country.  

Original Jurisdiction (The Rare Exception) In a very small number of instances, the Supreme Court acts as the first and only court to hear a case. This is known as its original jurisdiction. The Constitution limits these cases to specific scenarios, most notably disputes between two or more states, or cases involving ambassadors and other high-ranking public ministers. Such cases are rare—often only one to five per term—but can be exceptionally complex, requiring the Court to function more like a trial court, a role it seldom assumes.  

The fundamental structure of the federal judiciary, including the existence and composition of the Supreme Court, was established by Congress through the Judiciary Act of 1789. While Article III of the Constitution mandated “one supreme Court,” it left the details, such as the number of justices, to Congress. That number has fluctuated throughout history but has been fixed at nine—one Chief Justice and eight Associate Justices—since 1869.  

The Gateway: The Petition for a Writ of Certiorari

For the overwhelming majority of litigants, having their case heard by the Supreme Court is not a right but a privilege that must be requested and granted. The mechanism for this request is a formal legal document known as a petition for a writ of certiorari. This petition is the key that may unlock the Court’s door, initiating a rigorous and highly selective screening process.  

Crafting the Petition When a party is unsatisfied with the decision of a federal court of appeals or a state supreme court on a matter of federal law, they must file a “cert petition” with the Supreme Court. This document is a formal request for the Court to call up the records from the lower court for review.  

• Key Components: The Supreme Court’s own rules dictate the precise format of the petition. Critically, Rule 14 requires that the “Questions Presented for Review” be set out on the very first page following the cover. These questions must be expressed concisely and without unnecessary detail, as they frame the entire legal debate the petitioner hopes the Court will address. The core of the petition is an argument that the lower court has incorrectly decided an important question of law, creating legal uncertainty that the Supreme Court must resolve to ensure uniformity across the nation.  
• Deadlines: The process is governed by strict deadlines. A petition for a writ of certiorari is generally considered timely when it is filed with the Clerk of the Court within 90 days after the entry of the judgment or order from the lower court that is being appealed. This deadline is jurisdictional, meaning the Clerk will not accept a petition that is filed out of time.  

The “Cert Pool”: How Law Clerks Triage 7,000+ Petitions The sheer volume of petitions the Court receives is staggering. Each year, more than 7,000 cases are submitted, but the Court agrees to grant full review with oral arguments to only 100-150 of them. To manage this immense workload, the Court relies on two key institutional mechanisms: its elite cadre of law clerks and an informal system known as the “cert pool.”  

• The Role of Law Clerks: Each Justice is permitted to have three or four law clerks per term. These clerks are typically recent graduates from the nation’s top law schools who have already clerked for a federal judge. They are instrumental in the case selection process, conducting legal research that assists the Justices in deciding which cases to accept.  
• The Pool System: To avoid duplicative work, most of the Justices participate in the “cert pool”. As petitions arrive weekly, they are divided among the clerks of the participating Justices. For each assigned petition, a single law clerk reads all the associated filings, writes a concise memorandum summarizing the facts and legal arguments, and makes a recommendation as to whether the petition should be granted or denied. This “pool memo” is then circulated to the chambers of all Justices participating in the pool. The Justice for whom the clerk works then provides these memoranda and recommendations to the other Justices at a private conference where case selection is discussed.  

The “Rule of Four”: The Unwritten Custom that Sets the Court’s Agenda After the Justices have reviewed the petitions and the corresponding cert pool memos, they meet in conference to vote on which cases to accept. The decision to grant a writ of certiorari is governed by a long-standing internal custom known as the “Rule of Four.”

• Definition: The Rule of Four is a Supreme Court practice that permits four of the nine Justices to grant a writ of certiorari. This is a crucial exception to the majority-vote principle that governs the Court’s final decisions on the merits of a case.  
• Historical Context: This practice is not mandated by the Constitution or any federal law but is an unwritten, internal rule the Court has observed for decades. It became an established custom following the Judiciary Act of 1925, which gave the Court much greater discretion to choose the cases it hears. Justices first publicly described the practice in congressional hearings related to that act, indicating that the support of four (and sometimes fewer) Justices was sufficient to ensure a case would be heard.  
• Rationale for Granting Cert: The Court does not grant certiorari simply to correct an error in a lower court’s decision. It strategically selects cases that have broader legal implications. The most compelling reasons for granting a petition include the need to resolve a “circuit split”—a situation where different federal courts of appeals have issued conflicting decisions on the same important legal issue—or to address a case of broad national significance that requires a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. As the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg estimated, resolving circuit splits accounts for the vast majority of the Court’s docket.  

The certiorari process, when viewed in its entirety, reveals a sophisticated institutional design. It balances the practical need for efficiency with a principled commitment to a robust and ideologically diverse docket. The cert pool, driven by a small and elite group of law clerks, provides an essential filtering mechanism that allows the Justices to manage an otherwise overwhelming number of petitions. However, this efficient, technocratic filter is paired with the Rule of Four, a profoundly counter-majoritarian decision rule. This rule ensures that a simple five-Justice majority cannot completely control the Court’s agenda by blocking cases it may prefer not to address. It empowers a substantial minority of the Court to compel the full body to confront a legal question, serving as a vital internal check and balance. This structure prevents the Court’s docket from becoming too insular and ensures that minority viewpoints within the judiciary—and by extension, within the broader legal landscape—can be heard and considered, safeguarding against a “tyranny of the majority” on the Court itself.  

The Merits Stage: Advocacy in Writing and in Person

Once the Court grants a petition for a writ of certiorari, the case moves from the selection phase to the “merits stage.” This is where the parties present their full arguments on why they should win the case, first through extensive written briefs and then through a focused, in-person oral argument before the nine Justices.

Briefing the Case The written briefs filed during the merits stage are the core of each party’s advocacy. They are far more detailed than the initial cert petitions and are designed to persuade the Justices on the substance of the legal questions presented.

• Parties: The party that successfully petitioned the Court to hear the case is known as the “petitioner,” while the opposing party is the “respondent”.  
• Merits Briefs: The petitioner files the first merits brief, laying out the full legal argument for why the lower court’s decision was incorrect. The respondent then files a brief in opposition, explaining why the lower court’s ruling was correct and should be upheld. Finally, the petitioner has the opportunity to file a reply brief to address points raised in the respondent’s brief.  

The Influence of “Friends of the Court”: The Role of Amicus Curiae Briefs Beyond the parties directly involved, other interested individuals and organizations can participate in the case by filing amicus curiae (or “friend of the court”) briefs.  

• Definition and Purpose: Amicus briefs are filed by non-litigants who have a strong interest in the outcome and believe their perspective or expertise can be of use to the Court. These briefs can be especially persuasive when they come from entities with specialized knowledge, such as medical associations in a healthcare case or technology experts in a digital privacy case.  
• Influence: Amicus briefs serve several critical functions. They can provide the Court with valuable scientific, historical, or social science information that the parties may not have presented. They also signal the broader importance of the case, demonstrating to the Justices how their decision will affect numerous groups and industries beyond the immediate parties. The number of amicus briefs filed on each side of a case is often a reliable indicator of its national significance. Research has shown that these briefs can influence not only the Court’s final decision on the merits but also the very content of the opinions the Justices write.  

The Oral Argument: A 60-Minute Dialogue with the Justices The oral argument is the only public and interactive phase of the Court’s decision-making process. It is a tightly structured and intellectually demanding event.

• Format: The Court typically hears two arguments a day, with each case allotted a total of one hour—30 minutes per side. There is no jury, and no new evidence or witnesses are presented; the Court relies solely on the existing record from the lower courts and the legal arguments presented in the briefs.  
• A Socratic Exchange: An oral argument is not a prepared speech. It is a dynamic and often intense conversation between the attorneys and the Justices. From the moment an attorney begins to speak, they are subject to a rapid-fire series of questions from the bench. The Justices use this time to clarify their understanding of the case, probe for weaknesses in the legal arguments, and explore the potential real-world consequences of a particular ruling.  
• Scheduling: Oral arguments are held during “sittings,” which alternate with “recesses” in two-week intervals. Public argument sessions are typically held on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Wednesdays from the first Monday in October through late April.  

The Decision-Making Process: Conference, Voting, and Opinion Assignment

Following the public spectacle of oral argument, the decision-making process moves behind closed doors into one of the Court’s most sacrosanct spaces: the Justices’ private conference.

The Justices’ Private Conference On the Fridays during and preceding argument weeks, the Justices meet alone to discuss the cases they have heard and to vote on petitions for review. These conferences are held in complete secrecy; only the nine Justices are permitted in the room, with no law clerks or other staff present. This ensures that their deliberations are candid and free from outside influence.  

Deliberation and Voting The conference begins with a discussion of the argued cases. By tradition, the Chief Justice speaks first, summarizing the case and stating his views. The Associate Justices then speak in descending order of seniority. After the discussion, the Justices vote. The voting proceeds in the same order, starting with the Chief Justice and ending with the most junior Associate Justice.  

Assigning the Opinion The outcome of the vote determines who has the crucial task of assigning the Justice to write the opinion of the Court. If the Chief Justice is in the majority, he decides which Justice in that majority will author the opinion. If the Chief Justice is in the minority (the dissent), the assignment power falls to the most senior Justice who voted with the majority. This assignment is a strategic decision, as the assigned author has the first opportunity to frame the legal reasoning that will become the law of the land.  

The Final Word: The Announcement and Publication of Opinions

The vote in conference is preliminary. The final decision is not reached until the opinion-writing process is complete, a period that can take several months.

Drafting and Circulation The Justice assigned to write the majority opinion drafts a document that explains the Court’s reasoning and holding. This draft is then circulated to all the other Justices. Justices in the majority may suggest edits or ask for changes to ensure the opinion accurately reflects their views. A majority of Justices—at least five—must sign on to the opinion for it to become the official holding of the Court. During this time, Justices who disagree with the majority may write dissenting opinions, and those who agree with the outcome but not the reasoning may write concurring opinions. It is not unheard of for a Justice to change their vote after reading the draft opinions, which in a close 5-4 case can change which side becomes the majority.  

Announcement and Publication Once the opinions are finalized, the decision is announced in a public session of the Court. The Justice who authored the majority opinion will often read a summary from the bench. Immediately upon announcement, the “slip opinions” are released to the public on the Court’s website. These opinions are later compiled and published in the official case books known as the  

United States Reports, which serve as the permanent, authoritative record of the Court’s decisions.  

The Researcher’s Primary Toolkit: Official Digital Resources

In the digital age, the U.S. Supreme Court provides a wealth of information directly to the public through its official website and electronic filing system. These resources are the authoritative starting point for any research endeavor, offering direct and unfiltered access to the primary documents that constitute a case’s official record. Mastering these tools is an essential skill for anyone seeking to track the Court’s work accurately and efficiently.

Navigating SupremeCourt.gov: A Comprehensive Guide

The official website of the Supreme Court of the United States, www.supremecourt.gov, is the definitive source for all official information and documents related to the Court’s activities. Its well-organized interface provides access to dockets, oral argument materials, opinions, and more.  

The Docket Search System The docket is the official record of the proceedings and filings in a case. The Court’s online docket system is the central hub for tracking a case’s progress.

• Functionality: The system provides comprehensive information for all cases filed with the Court since the beginning of its 2001 Term. Researchers can find a specific case by searching for its unique docket number (e.g., “23-411”), the case name (e.g.,   Murthy v. Missouri), or other keywords contained within the docket report.  
• Key Documents: Each case’s docket page presents a chronological list of every document filed and every action taken by the Court. For cases filed after November 2017, electronic versions of most briefs—including merits briefs and amicus briefs—are available as direct PDF links within the docket itself. A crucial piece of information, the “Questions Presented” that the Court has agreed to review, is also accessible via a prominent hyperlink on the docket report for any granted case.  
• Email Alerts: For those actively monitoring a pending case, the website offers a powerful and convenient feature: email notifications. By visiting the docket page for an individual case and clicking on the small envelope icon, a user can subscribe to receive an automatic email alert every time a new document is filed or the Court takes a new action in that case. This transforms passive research into active, real-time monitoring.  

Accessing Oral Arguments: Transcripts, Audio, and Live Feeds The Court provides multiple ways to access the oral arguments, allowing researchers to engage with this critical stage of the advocacy process.

• Transcripts: For arguments heard since the beginning of the October 2000 Term, the Court posts official transcripts on its website on the same day the argument is heard. The digital archive of transcripts extends back to the 1968 Term, providing a rich historical record of advocacy before the Court.  
• Audio Recordings: Audio recordings of all oral arguments are available on the website for every term since October 2010. These recordings are typically posted on the Friday at the end of each argument week. For arguments that occurred between 1955 (when the Court began recording) and 2010, the audio recordings are preserved and accessible at the National Archives.  
• Live Audio: In a significant move toward greater transparency, the Court now provides a live audio feed of oral arguments as they happen. This allows the public to listen in real time to the dialogue between the Justices and the advocates, a practice that was once reserved for the few who could secure a seat in the courtroom.  

The Opinions Database: From Slip Opinions to the U.S. Reports The final output of the Court’s work is its written opinions, all of which are made immediately available on the official website.

• Immediate Access: On the day a decision is announced, the full text of all opinions in the case (majority, concurring, and dissenting) is posted on the website within minutes of the announcement from the bench. These initial versions are known as “slip opinions”.  
• Types of Opinions: The website’s “Opinions” section is comprehensive, including not only the well-known opinions in argued cases but also per curiam opinions (which often dispose of cases without oral argument), in-chambers opinions written by individual Justices on emergency applications, and opinions relating to Court orders, such as a Justice’s dissent from the decision to deny certiorari in a particular case.  
• Official Publication: The slip opinions are the first version of the Court’s ruling. Over the following months, they are edited and formatted for inclusion in the “preliminary prints” and, ultimately, the final, bound volumes of the United States Reports, which constitute the official and permanent publication of the Court’s decisions.  

The Supreme Court’s Electronic Filing System

While the Supreme Court has embraced digital dissemination of its work, its approach to the filing of documents remains distinct from the rest of the federal judiciary, reflecting a cautious and deliberate institutional character.

How it Works: A Hybrid System Unlike the lower federal courts, which have fully transitioned to the Case Management/Electronic Case Files (CM/ECF) system for all filings , the Supreme Court operates a hybrid system. Crucially,  

paper remains the official form of filing at the Supreme Court. This means that physical copies of all documents must be delivered to the Clerk’s Office.  

Mandatory Electronic Submission In addition to the official paper filing, parties who are represented by counsel are required to submit electronic versions of their documents through the Court’s dedicated electronic filing portal (file.supremecourt.gov). This dual requirement ensures both a physical archival record and immediate digital accessibility. Litigants who represent themselves (  

pro se parties) are exempt from this electronic requirement and submit their filings only on paper.  

Public Access The Court’s commitment to transparency is evident in how it handles these electronic submissions. All documents filed electronically by counsel, as well as digital scans of the paper filings submitted by pro se parties, are made available to the public on the Court’s main docket system, free of charge.  

The Court’s deliberate retention of paper as the “official” medium for filings is a telling indicator of its institutional culture. In an era where every other federal court has adopted a fully digital workflow through the integrated CM/ECF and PACER systems, the Supreme Court’s adherence to a hybrid model underscores a deep-seated institutional conservatism and a methodical, cautious approach to technological change. This is not merely a procedural quirk; it shapes the entire research environment. While the Court provides robust digital access to its documents, its primary focus is on maintaining the official record, not on creating a sophisticated, user-centric research platform. This institutional mindset has historically resulted in a gap between the raw data the Court provides and the analytical and contextual tools that researchers need. This gap has created a crucial opening for a vibrant ecosystem of third-party services to emerge, offering the features, analysis, and accessibility that complement the Court’s official but functionally minimalist resources.

Essential Third-Party Platforms for Comprehensive Tracking and Analysis

While the Supreme Court’s official website is the authoritative source for primary documents, a rich ecosystem of third-party platforms has emerged to provide the context, analysis, and enhanced accessibility that are essential for a complete understanding of the Court’s work. These unofficial but indispensable resources translate the raw data of court filings into a coherent narrative, making the institution’s complex proceedings intelligible to a much broader audience. For the modern researcher, proficiency with these tools is just as important as familiarity with the official sources.

SCOTUSblog: The Premier Source for News and Analysis

In the landscape of Supreme Court coverage, SCOTUSblog has established itself as the preeminent resource. It functions as a specialized news outlet, staffed by seasoned legal journalists and practitioners, devoted to covering every facet of the Court’s work with a commitment to accuracy, depth, and non-partisanship.  

• Leveraging Case Files: The site’s greatest strength for researchers is its meticulous organization of case materials. For every case granted review (the “merits docket”), SCOTUSblog creates a dedicated case page that serves as a one-stop repository for all relevant documents. This includes not only the petitioner and respondent briefs but also every single amicus curiae brief filed, all conveniently available for download in PDF format. The site also provides dedicated tracking of the “Emergency Docket” (often called the “shadow docket”), where the Court makes urgent rulings with limited briefing and no argument, and a curated list of “Petitions We’re Watching,” which highlights cert petitions that the blog’s experts believe have a reasonable chance of being granted.  
• Real-Time Coverage and Expert Commentary: SCOTUSblog’s signature feature is its live blog on opinion days. As the Court announces decisions, the blog provides instantaneous updates on the outcome, the vote breakdown, and the author of the opinion, followed minutes later by a concise summary and analysis. This real-time coverage has become the go-to source for journalists, lawyers, and academics on decision days. Furthermore, the blog publishes plain-English analyses of every merits case at three key stages: a preview before oral argument, a recap after the argument, and a detailed analysis of the final decision. It also features regular columns on Court statistics and commentary from a roster of leading legal scholars and practitioners.  

Oyez: The Multimedia Archive of the Court

If SCOTUSblog provides the definitive narrative of the Court’s work, Oyez provides the definitive audio experience. A free law project from Cornell’s Legal Information Institute, Justia, and Chicago-Kent College of Law, Oyez is a multimedia archive dedicated to making the Supreme Court accessible to everyone, with a particular focus on students, educators, and the general public.  

• Bringing Oral Arguments to Life: The centerpiece of Oyez is its comprehensive and authoritative archive of Supreme Court oral argument audio, which includes every recorded argument since the Court installed a recording system in October 1955. The site’s most powerful feature is its   transcript-synchronized audio. This allows a user to listen to the argument while reading a scrolling transcript. The text is highlighted as the words are spoken, and a user can click on any sentence in the transcript to instantly jump to that precise moment in the audio recording. This transforms the oral argument from a passive listening experience into an interactive and searchable research tool.  
• Accessible Content: Oyez is designed for accessibility. For each case in its archive, the site provides a concise, plain-English summary of the facts and the legal questions presented, an illustrated graphic showing how each Justice voted, and links to the full text of the Court’s opinions. It also features detailed biographies and voting records for every Justice who has ever served on the Court, making it an invaluable historical and educational resource.  

Clarifying the Role of PACER

Researchers new to the federal court system often encounter PACER and may be confused about its relationship to the Supreme Court. It is crucial to understand that PACER serves the lower federal courts, not the Supreme Court directly, but is nonetheless an essential tool for deep-dive research.

• What PACER Is: PACER, an acronym for Public Access to Court Electronic Records, is the official electronic portal for documents filed in United States district courts, bankruptcy courts, and courts of appeals. It provides instantaneous access to more than a billion documents across the federal judiciary.  
• Relevance for Supreme Court Research: While the Supreme Court maintains its own separate docketing system, every case that arrives there on appeal has an extensive prior history in the lower courts. PACER is the only resource for accessing the complete record of that history. For any given Supreme Court case, a researcher can use PACER to retrieve the original complaint filed in the district court, all subsequent motions and orders, trial transcripts, and the briefs and opinions from the court of appeals. This background is indispensable for understanding the full context of the legal issues the Supreme Court ultimately decides. The PACER Case Locator tool allows for a nationwide search to find where a case was originally filed.  
• Cost Structure: Access to PACER is fee-based, but designed to be affordable. The charge is typically $0.10 per page viewed, with the cost for any single document capped at $3.00 (the equivalent of 30 pages). In a key provision that benefits students, journalists, and occasional researchers, all fees are waived for any user who accrues $30 or less in charges during a quarterly billing period. As a result, a large percentage of PACER users pay nothing for their access.  

Table 1: Comparison of Key Digital Research Tools for Supreme Court Cases

The landscape of Supreme Court research is a decentralized ecosystem, with different platforms serving distinct but complementary functions. No single tool does everything. The following table provides an at-a-glance comparison to help researchers select the right tool for the right task, illustrating the division of labor between the official sources that provide raw data and the third-party platforms that provide context, analysis, and enhanced usability.

Feature	SupremeCourt.gov	SCOTUSblog	Oyez	PACER
Official Status	Official	Unofficial	Unofficial	Official
Primary Focus	Official records, dockets, opinions, transcripts	News, analysis, case tracking, briefs	Oral argument audio, case summaries, justice data	Lower federal court dockets and documents
Key Strengths	Authoritative source of official documents	Real-time updates, expert analysis, comprehensive brief access	Multimedia experience, educational focus	Comprehensive lower court case history
Cost	Free	Free	Free	Fee-based ($0.10/page, with caps)
Target Audience	Legal professionals, public	Legal professionals, journalists, academics	Students, educators, public	Legal professionals

Export to Sheets

From Tracking to Analysis: Deconstructing the Decision and Its Components

Locating the documents associated with a Supreme Court case is only the first step. The more challenging and rewarding task is to analyze those documents to understand the Court’s legal reasoning, the dynamics among the Justices, and the broader implications of the decision. This requires a nuanced understanding of the structure of a Supreme Court opinion and the strategic role played by the various briefs filed in a case.

How to Read a Supreme Court Opinion

A Supreme Court decision is not a single, monolithic document but often a collection of opinions that, taken together, reveal the Court’s judgment and the different legal paths the Justices took to reach their conclusions. Understanding the function of each component is essential for accurate interpretation.

The Syllabus Every opinion released by the Court begins with a syllabus. This section provides a summary of the case’s background, its journey through the lower courts, and an outline of the Court’s conclusions and reasoning. It is important to remember that the syllabus is prepared by the Court’s Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader; it is  

not part of the official opinion and has no binding legal authority. It is a helpful guide but should never be cited as the holding of the Court.  

Understanding the Types of Opinions Following the syllabus are the opinions themselves, authored by the Justices. The configuration of these opinions depends on the level of agreement among the nine members of the Court.

• Majority Opinion: This is the official opinion of the Court. To be a majority, it must be joined by at least five Justices. The reasoning laid out in the majority opinion establishes a binding precedent that all lower courts in the country must follow. In cases where all nine Justices agree on both the outcome and the reasoning, the opinion is referred to as a unanimous opinion.  
• Plurality Opinion: In some fractured cases, no single line of reasoning commands a majority of five votes. For example, the Court might rule 7-2 on the outcome, but the seven Justices in the majority may be split 4-3 on the legal rationale. The opinion that garners the most votes (in this case, four) is called a plurality opinion. A plurality decides the outcome for the specific parties in the case but does not have the same strong precedential weight as a majority opinion. In such situations, lower courts often look to the concurring opinion that decided the case on the “narrowest grounds” for guidance, a principle derived from the case   Marks v. U.S..  
• Concurring Opinion: A Justice writes a concurring opinion (or “concurrence”) when they agree with the outcome reached by the majority but wish to offer a different legal rationale. Concurrences can be exceptionally important. Sometimes, a concurring opinion introduces a new legal test or framework that, over time, proves more influential than the majority opinion itself. A classic example is Justice Robert H. Jackson’s concurrence in   Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, which created a three-part framework for analyzing presidential power that remains central to constitutional law today.  
• Dissenting Opinion: A Justice who disagrees with both the outcome and the legal reasoning of the majority writes a dissenting opinion (or “dissent”). While a dissent has no legal force, it can be a powerful tool of persuasion. Dissents often serve as a critique of the majority’s logic and can lay the intellectual groundwork for a future Court to reconsider and even overturn the precedent set by the majority. Justice John Marshall Harlan’s lone dissent in   Plessy v. Ferguson, which famously declared that “Our Constitution is color-blind,” is a prime example of a dissent that was later vindicated when the Court overturned segregation in Brown v. Board of Education.  
• Per Curiam Opinion: This is an unsigned opinion issued “by the Court” as a whole, rather than being authored by a specific Justice.   Per curiam opinions are often used for summary reversals of lower court decisions that are considered straightforward. However, the Court has also used this format in highly significant and contentious cases, most notably Bush v. Gore, which resolved the 2000 presidential election.  

A Supreme Court decision should not be viewed as a single, static pronouncement. It is, in effect, a strategic dialogue among the Justices, carried out in public through the vehicle of separate opinions. The concurrences and dissents are not mere afterthoughts; they are purposeful legal documents. A Justice writing a concurrence is often attempting to narrow the scope of the majority’s holding or to signal an alternative path for future cases. A Justice writing a dissent is providing a roadmap for future litigants and lower court judges who may seek to challenge or limit the majority’s precedent. Therefore, a sophisticated analysis requires reading all the opinions together to understand the full legal landscape: the stability of the precedent, the points of internal disagreement, and the potential avenues for future legal evolution.

Locating and Evaluating Briefs

The opinions are the final product, but the briefs filed by the parties and amici are the raw materials from which those opinions are constructed. Analyzing these documents provides insight into the arguments that the Justices found persuasive.

Finding Briefs Accessing briefs has become significantly easier in the digital era.

• Recent Cases: For any case with filings submitted after November 13, 2017, the most direct way to find all briefs is on the case’s docket page on the official Supreme Court website. SCOTUSblog also provides a conveniently aggregated list of all briefs for every modern merits case.  
• Older Cases: For historical research, briefs can be found in several places. The websites of subscription-based legal research services like Westlaw and LexisNexis have extensive archives. For cases in which the U.S. government was a party, the Office of the Solicitor General maintains an online archive of its briefs dating back to the 1980s. University and law libraries often subscribe to specialized historical databases, such as ProQuest’s Supreme Court Insight and Gale’s Making of Modern Law collection, which contain briefs from decades past.  

Assessing the Influence of Amicus Briefs Amicus briefs are far more than just symbolic statements of support; they are a critical channel of information to the Court.

• Providing New Information and Arguments: Amici often bring unique expertise and data to a case. They can introduce novel legal arguments that the parties may have overlooked or present the Court with crucial scientific, economic, or social science evidence.  
• Signaling a Case’s Importance: A large number of amicus briefs filed in a case signals to the Justices that the issue is of widespread public concern and that the Court’s decision will have far-reaching consequences.  
• Direct Influence on Opinions: The influence of amicus briefs is not merely speculative. Academic studies have demonstrated a direct link between the content of amicus briefs and the language of the Court’s final opinions. Using plagiarism-detection software, researchers have found that Justices and their clerks frequently borrow language, citations, and even entire lines of reasoning directly from amicus briefs when drafting their opinions, providing concrete evidence of their persuasive impact.  

Advanced Methodologies: Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of the Court

Beyond tracking individual cases, a deeper understanding of the Supreme Court can be achieved through the systematic, data-driven analysis of its behavior over time. Political scientists and legal scholars have developed sophisticated quantitative tools to identify patterns in judicial decision-making, measure the ideology of the Justices, and test theories about the forces that influence the Court. These empirical methods offer a powerful complement to traditional legal analysis.

The Supreme Court Database (SCDB)

The Supreme Court Database is the foundational resource for the quantitative study of the Court. It is a publicly available dataset, maintained by a team of political scientists, that contains an immense amount of coded information about every case decided by the Court since its first term in 1791.  

• Overview and Scope: The SCDB is the definitive source for researchers interested in the empirical analysis of the Court’s decisions. It contains over two hundred distinct pieces of information for each case, allowing for detailed statistical analysis of the Court’s history. The database is divided into a “Legacy” version (1791-1945) and a “Modern” version (1946-present).  
• Key Variables: For each case, the database records a wide array of variables, including the identity of the lower court, the parties involved, the specific legal provisions at issue (e.g., the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause), and the direction of the lower court’s ruling. Most importantly for the study of judicial behavior, the SCDB includes the individual vote of each Justice in every case and codes the ideological direction of each decision (liberal or conservative).  
• Analytical Use: The richness of the SCDB allows researchers to move beyond the analysis of a single case and identify broad patterns in the Court’s jurisprudence. Scholars use this data to track long-term trends in case outcomes, identify and analyze stable voting blocs among the Justices, and test complex theories about judicial behavior. For example, researchers have used SCDB data to explore whether the ideological direction of the Court’s decisions aligns with shifts in national public opinion over time, providing evidence for and against the theory that the Court is responsive to the broader political environment.  

Measuring Judicial Ideology: The Martin-Quinn Scores

One of the most significant applications of quantitative analysis has been the development of objective measures of judicial ideology. The most widely used and respected of these are the Martin-Quinn (MQ) Scores.

• Overview: Developed by political scientists Andrew Martin and Kevin Quinn, the MQ Scores provide an estimate of the ideological position of every Supreme Court Justice on a one-dimensional liberal-conservative scale, for every term they served from 1937 to the present. These scores are publicly available and regularly updated.  
• Methodology: The scores are not based on subjective judgments or political affiliations. Instead, they are generated using a dynamic item response theory model, a sophisticated statistical technique that analyzes the patterns of agreement and disagreement in the Justices’ votes. The model infers the ideological position of each Justice based on how frequently they vote with other Justices whose ideologies are simultaneously being estimated. The “dynamic” nature of the model allows a Justice’s score to change gradually over the course of their career, capturing potential ideological drift.  
• Analytical Use: MQ Scores are an invaluable tool for understanding the internal politics of the Court. They allow researchers to quantify the ideological composition of the Court in any given term and, crucially, to identify the “median justice”—the Justice who sits at the ideological center of the Court. In a nine-member court, the vote of the median Justice is often decisive in closely divided cases, making their ideological position a key predictor of case outcomes. These scores are a fundamental building block for statistical models of judicial decision-making. Alongside MQ Scores, other valuable datasets for analyzing judicial ideology include the Judicial Common Space (JCS) scores, the Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections (DIME), and the Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS).  

Practical Application: A Step-by-Step Guide to Tracking Murthy v. Missouri

To demonstrate how the concepts and tools discussed in this report are applied in practice, this section provides a step-by-step guide to researching a single, high-profile case from the Court’s recent docket: Murthy v. Missouri (Docket No. 23-411). This case, which addressed allegations that the federal government unconstitutionally pressured social media companies to censor speech, provides an excellent real-world example of the modern research process.

Case Background: The case, originally styled Missouri v. Biden, involved claims by two states (Missouri and Louisiana) and several individuals that officials in the executive branch violated the First Amendment by coercing or significantly encouraging social media platforms to remove or suppress content related to topics like COVID-19 and election integrity.  

Step 1: The Lower Courts (Using PACER) The first step in understanding any Supreme Court case is to examine its history. The Murthy litigation began in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. The district court issued a preliminary injunction against the government, which was then appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. A comprehensive researcher would begin by logging into  

PACER to access the dockets for these lower court proceedings. There, one could retrieve the original complaint, the district court’s extensive findings of fact and its injunction order, the briefs filed in the Fifth Circuit, and the Fifth Circuit’s opinion, which modified the injunction. This foundational research provides the essential context for the arguments later presented to the Supreme Court.  

Step 2: The Petition Stage (Using SupremeCourt.gov and SCOTUSblog) The case arrived at the Supreme Court in an urgent posture. On September 14, 2023, the government filed an emergency application (No. 23A243) asking the Court to stay the Fifth Circuit’s injunction while it prepared a formal petition for a writ of certiorari. This action took place on the Court’s “emergency” or “shadow” docket. All documents related to this application, including Justice Alito’s initial administrative stays, can be found on the  

Supreme Court’s official docket. On October 20, 2023, the full Court acted: it granted the government’s application for a stay and, simultaneously, treated the application as a petition for certiorari and granted it, placing the case on its merits docket for full review. All of these key dates and orders are chronicled on the official docket and are also clearly laid out and explained on the  

SCOTUSblog case page.  

Step 3: The Merits Stage (Using SupremeCourt.gov and SCOTUSblog) Once certiorari was granted, the parties and numerous outside groups prepared their arguments on the merits. The government (as petitioner) filed its brief, followed by the respondents (Missouri, et al.), and then a government reply brief. In addition, dozens of amicus curiae briefs were filed by a wide range of organizations. All of these briefs are available for download directly from the Supreme Court’s docket page for case No. 23-411. For convenience, the SCOTUSblog case page aggregates these same documents, often organizing them by which party they support, providing a clear overview of the arguments marshaled by each side.  

Step 4: The Oral Argument (Using Oyez, SupremeCourt.gov, and SCOTUSblog) The Supreme Court heard oral argument in Murthy v. Missouri on March 18, 2024. A researcher has multiple ways to engage with this crucial event. To experience the argument as it happened, one can visit  

Oyez, which offers the full audio recording synchronized with a searchable transcript, allowing the user to hear the tone of the Justices’ questions and the advocates’ responses. For a text-based record, the official argument transcript is available for download on  

SupremeCourt.gov. For immediate analysis,  

SCOTUSblog published a detailed summary and analysis of the argument on the same day it occurred, highlighting the key exchanges and the apparent leanings of the Justices.  

Step 5: The Decision (Using SupremeCourt.gov) On June 26, 2024, the Supreme Court issued its decision. The primary and authoritative source for the decision is  

SupremeCourt.gov, where the full slip opinion was posted within minutes of its announcement. The opinion revealed that the Court had reversed the Fifth Circuit’s judgment in a 6-3 decision. The majority opinion, authored by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, held that the plaintiffs lacked Article III standing to seek an injunction because they could not sufficiently trace their alleged injuries to the actions of the government defendants. The decision also included a lengthy dissenting opinion by Justice Samuel Alito, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch.  

Step 6: Post-Decision Analysis (Using SCOTUSblog and Other Sources) Understanding the legal holding is only part of the research process; grasping its broader significance requires consulting expert analysis. Immediately following the release of the decision, SCOTUSblog published an article explaining the Court’s reasoning on the complex issue of standing and what it meant for the case. In the days that followed, a wide array of legal and policy organizations, such as the Federalist Society and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, published their own detailed analyses, offering different perspectives on the ruling’s implications for free speech and government communication in the digital age. A thorough researcher would consult these varied sources to develop a comprehensive understanding of the decision’s impact and the ongoing legal debate.  

Conclusion: The Evolving Landscape of Supreme Court Research

The methods for researching and tracking the Supreme Court of the United States have been transformed in the digital age. What was once a practice confined to the physical stacks of law libraries and the costly pages of subscription services has become a dynamic and broadly accessible endeavor. The modern research landscape is a vibrant, symbiotic ecosystem where official, authoritative sources from the Court itself are enhanced and contextualized by a suite of powerful, unofficial third-party platforms.

The journey of a case, from the initial petition for a writ of certiorari to the final publication of an opinion, is now transparent in a way that was previously unimaginable. The Court’s own website serves as the bedrock of this transparency, providing immediate, free access to the dockets, briefs, transcripts, audio, and opinions that form the official record. However, the official record alone tells only part of the story. It is the ecosystem of specialized tools that brings this record to life. SCOTUSblog provides the indispensable narrative, translating complex legal filings into accessible news and analysis in real time. Oyez creates a rich multimedia archive, allowing anyone to hear the voices of the Justices and advocates as they debated the great constitutional questions of our time. And PACER serves as the essential gateway to the past, unlocking the full procedural history of a case as it wound its way through the lower federal courts.

Furthermore, the digital revolution has not only changed how we track the Court but also how we analyze it. The advent of comprehensive, machine-readable datasets like the Supreme Court Database and sophisticated ideological measures like the Martin-Quinn Scores has opened new frontiers in the empirical study of judicial behavior. These tools allow researchers to move beyond the qualitative analysis of individual cases to identify broad, data-driven patterns in jurisprudence, voting alignments, and the Court’s relationship with the broader political system.

Ultimately, effective Supreme Court research in the modern era is an active, multi-platform process. It requires both the traditional legal skills of close reading and doctrinal analysis and the digital literacy to navigate a decentralized but interconnected world of information. By mastering this diverse toolkit, legal professionals, scholars, students, and engaged citizens alike can achieve a more comprehensive, nuanced, and timely understanding of the work of the nation’s highest court.

References

American Bar Association. (n.d.-a). Landmark United States Supreme Court Cases. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/programs/constitution_day/landmark-cases/

American Bar Association. (n.d.-b). Reading a U.S. Supreme Court Opinion. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publications/teaching-legal-docs/how-to-read-a-u-s-supreme-court-opinion/

American Bar Association. (n.d.-c). Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/supreme-court/

American Bar Association. (2015, September 1). Behind the Scenes: How the U.S. Supreme Court Decides. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/reproductive-rights-us-supreme-court/behind-the-scenes-how-the-u-s-supreme-court-decides/

American Civil Liberties Union. (n.d.). All Cases. Retrieved from https://www.aclu.org/court-cases?type=supreme-court

Annenberg Classroom. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.annenbergclassroom.org/resource/oyez/

Badas, A., & Simas, E. N. (n.d.). The Supreme Court as an Electoral Issue. Retrieved from https://uh.edu/~abadas/BadasSimas-SupremeCourtElectoralIssue.pdf

Ballotpedia. (n.d.). Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025. Retrieved from https://ballotpedia.org/Supreme_Court_cases,_October_term_2024-2025

Bonica, A. (2024). Database on Ideology, Money in Politics, and Elections. Stanford University Libraries. Retrieved from https://data.stanford.edu/dime

Chegg Inc. (n.d.). Free Bluebook Citation Generator. Cite This For Me. Retrieved from https://www.citethisforme.com/citation-generator/bluebook-citation-generator

Clio. (2025, September 15). The Best Free Legal Research Tools for Today’s Attorneys. Retrieved from https://www.clio.com/blog/best-free-legal-research-tools/

Collins, P. M., Jr. (2004). Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation. Law & Society Review, 38(4), 807–832. Retrieved from https://politicalscience.unt.edu/~pmcollins/LSR2004.pdf

Collins, P. M., Jr., Corley, P. C., & Hamner, J. (2015). The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on U.S. Supreme Court Opinion Content. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 917–946. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12164

Copeland, J. (2025, September 3). Favorable views of Supreme Court remain near historic low. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/09/03/favorable-views-of-supreme-court-remain-near-historic-low/

Cope, K. L. (n.d.). Jurist-Derived Judicial Ideology Scores (JuDJIS). Retrieved from https://judjis.org/

Democracy Forward. (n.d.). People’s Guide to the 2024-2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term. Retrieved from https://democracyforward.org/peoples-guide-to-the-2024-2025-supreme-court-term/

DuPage County Bar Association. (n.d.). How a Case Gets to the U.S. Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://www.dcba.org/mpage/v36-David-Mathues

EBSCO. (n.d.). Writ of Certiorari. Retrieved from https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/writ-certiorari

eFileTexas.gov. (n.d.). Official E-Filing System for Texas. Retrieved from https://www.efiletexas.gov/

Epstein, L., et al. (n.d.). The U.S. Supreme Court Database. Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved from http://scdb.wustl.edu/

Federal Judicial Center. (n.d.). The Supreme Court’s Rule of Four. Retrieved from https://www.fjc.gov/history/spotlight-judicial-history/rule-four

Fiveable. (n.d.). Rule of Four. Retrieved from https://fiveable.me/key-terms/fundamentals-american-government/rule

Hall, M. (n.d.). Datasets. The Law and Courts Portal. Retrieved from https://lawcourts.org/datasets/

Harvard Law School Library. (2025, January 27). How do I cite a court case in bluebook format? Retrieved from https://asklib.law.harvard.edu/faq/115436

HeinOnline. (n.d.). What is Oyez? Retrieved from https://help.heinonline.org/kb/what-is-oyez/

Houston, J. E. (n.d.). How to Read an Opinion of a Court. Jacksonville State University Library. Retrieved from https://www.jsu.edu/library/pdfs/handouts/HowtoReadanOpinionofaCourt.pdf

Judicial Branch of California. (n.d.-a). Docket Search. Retrieved from https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/docket-search

Judicial Branch of California. (n.d.-b). Electronic Filing Information for the Supreme Court. Retrieved from https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/e-filing-procedures/e-filing

Judicial Branch of California. (n.d.-c). Oral Arguments. Retrieved from https://supreme.courts.ca.gov/case-information/oral-arguments

Judicature. (2021). Polarization and Partisanship in State Supreme Court Elections. Duke Law. Retrieved from https://judicature.duke.edu/articles/polarization-and-partisanship-in-state-supreme-court-elections/

Justia. (n.d.-a). Reading a Supreme Court Decision. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/reading-supreme-court-decision/

Justia. (n.d.-b). Stages of a Supreme Court Case. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/stages-of-supreme-court-case/

Justia. (n.d.-c). U.S. Supreme Court Center. Retrieved from https://supreme.justia.com/

Kearney, J. D., & Merrill, T. W. (2000). The Influence of Amicus Curiae Briefs on the Supreme Court. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 148(3), 743–855. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.columbia.edu/faculty_scholarship/3490/

Kelly, D. (2006). Amicus Curiae Briefs: The Court’s Perspective. Justice System Journal, 27(2), 179-191. Retrieved from https://ncsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital/api/collection/appellate/id/128/download

Law-Related Education Department, State Bar of Texas. (2020). Oyez Oyez Oh Yay! Retrieved from https://oyezoyezohyay.org/

LawNext. (n.d.). Citation Checking. Retrieved from https://directory.lawnext.com/categories/citation-checking/

LawRank. (n.d.). The Best Free Legal Research Tools. Retrieved from https://lawrank.com/best-free-legal-research-tools/

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-a). Petition for Certiorari. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/petition_for_certiorari

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-b). Rule 13. Review on Certiorari: Time for Petitioning. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_13

Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-c). Rule 14. Content of a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari. Cornell Law School. Retrieved from https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/supct/rule_14

Martin, A. D., & Quinn, K. M. (n.d.). Martin-Quinn Scores. Washington University in St. Louis. Retrieved from http://mqscores.wustl.edu/

National Archives. (n.d.). U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments. Retrieved from https://www.archives.gov/research/court-records/oral-arguments

National Governors Association. (n.d.). Key Takeaways from the 2024–2025 U.S. Supreme Court Term: Implications for States and Territories. Retrieved from https://www.nga.org/updates/key-takeaways-from-the-2024-2025-u-s-supreme-court-term-implications-for-states-and-territories/

Obama White House Archives. (n.d.). The Judicial Branch. Retrieved from https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/1600/judicial-branch

Orentlicher, D. (2021). Judicial Consensus: Why the Supreme Court Should Decide Its Cases Unanimously. UNLV Law Faculty Publications. Retrieved from https://scholars.law.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2388&context=facpub

Oyez. (n.d.-a). About Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/about

Oyez. (n.d.-b). About the Audio. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/about-audio

Oyez. (n.d.-c). Cases from 2022-2023 Term. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2022

Oyez. (n.d.-d). History of Oyez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/history

Oyez. (n.d.-e). Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/

PACER. (n.d.-a). About Us. Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/about-us

PACER. (n.d.-b). Do you offer access to state or county courts? Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/do-you-offer-access-state-or-county-courts

PACER. (n.d.-c). Find a Case. Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/find-case

PACER. (n.d.-d). Homepage. Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/

PACER. (n.d.-e). PACER – Case Search Only. Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/register-account/pacer-case-search-only

PACER. (n.d.-f). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/file-case/court-cmecf-lookup/court/SCOTUS

PACER. (n.d.-g). What is PACER? Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/what-pacer

PACER. (n.d.-h). What information is available through PACER? Retrieved from https://pacer.uscourts.gov/help/faqs/what-information-available-through-pacer

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-a). About. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/about/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-b). Emergency Docket 2024-25. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/emergency/emergency-docket-2024/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-c). Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-d). Live blog of orders and opinions. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-e). October Term 2024. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/terms/ot2024/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-f). Petitions We’re Watching. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/petitions-were-watching/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-g). Rule of four. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/election-law-explainers/rule-of-four/

SCOTUSblog. (n.d.-h). Supreme Court Procedure. Retrieved from https://www.scotusblog.com/supreme-court-procedure/

Simpliverified. (n.d.). Everything You Need to Know About the Federal PACER Search. Retrieved from https://simpliverified.com/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-federal-pacer-search/

Supreme Court Historical Society. (n.d.). How The Court Works — Types of Cases the Court Hears. Retrieved from https://supremecourthistory.org/how-the-court-works/types-of-cases-the-court-hears/

Supreme Court of Ohio. (n.d.). Public Docket. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/clerk/ecms/

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-a). About the Court. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/about.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-b). Argument Transcripts. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcript.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-c). Availability of Oral Argument Transcripts. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/availabilityoforalargumenttranscripts.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-d). Case Citation Finder. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/casefinder.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-e). Docket Search. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-f). Electronic Filing. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/filingandrules/electronicfiling.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-g). FAQs – Locating Court Documents and Information. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_documents.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-h). Homepage. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-i). Live Oral Argument Audio. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-j). Login – Electronic Filing System External. Retrieved from https://file.supremecourt.gov/

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-k). Opinions. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/opinions.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-l). Search Results for “briefs”. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?Search=briefs&type=Site

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-m). Slip Opinions – 2024. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/slipopinion/24

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-n). The Court and Its Procedures. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/procedures.aspx

Supreme Court of the United States. (n.d.-o). Where to Find Briefs. Retrieved from https://www.supremecourt.gov/meritsbriefs/briefsource.aspx

Teachinghistory.org. (n.d.). Oyez: U.S. Supreme Court Multimedia. Retrieved from https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/website-reviews/14599

United States Courts. (n.d.-a). Accessing Court Documents: A Journalist’s Guide. Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/reports/handbooks-manuals/a-journalists-guide-federal-courts/accessing-court-documents-journalists-guide

United States Courts. (n.d.-b). Electronic Filing (CM/ECF). Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records/electronic-filing-cm-ecf

United States Courts. (n.d.-c). Find a Case (PACER). Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/court-records/find-a-case-pacer

United States Courts. (n.d.-d). Supreme Court Procedures. Retrieved from https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/educational-resources/about-educational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-court-procedures

USA.gov. (n.d.). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://www.usa.gov/agencies/supreme-court-of-the-united-states

Washington State Courts. (n.d.). Filing Documents Electronically. Retrieved from https://www.courts.wa.gov/appellate_trial_courts/supreme/clerks/?fa=atc_supreme_clerks.display&fileID=eFiling

Wikipedia. (n.d.-a). Oyez Project. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oyez_Project

Wikipedia. (n.d.-b). PACER (law). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PACER_(law

Wikipedia. (n.d.-c). Rule of four. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_four

Wikipedia. (n.d.-d). Supreme Court of the United States. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Williams, A. (2000). The Role of Public Opinion in Supreme Court Decision Making. Res Publica, 5(1). Retrieved from https://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1177&context=respublica

Yale Law School. (n.d.). Locating Court Records, Briefs and Oral Arguments. Retrieved from https://library.law.yale.edu/research-guides/locating-court-records-briefs-and-oral-arguments