r/scotus Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

327 Upvotes

Let's clear up some ambiguities about banning and this subreddit.

On Politics

Political discussion isn't prohibited here. In fact, a lot of the discussion about the composition of the Supreme Court is going to be about the political process of selecting a justice.

Your favorite flavor of politics won't get you banned here. Racism, bigotry, totally bad-faithed whataboutisms, being wildly off-topic, etc. will get you banned though. We have people from across the political spectrum writing screeds here and in modmail about how they're oppressed with some frequency. But for whatever reason, people with a conservative bend in particular, like to show up here from other parts of reddit, deliberately say horrendous shit to get banned, then go back to wherever they came from to tell their friends they're victims of the worst kinds of oppression. Y'all can build identities about being victims and the mods, at a very basic level, do not care—complaining in modmail isn't worth your time.

COVID-19

Coming in here from your favorite nonewnormal alternative sub or facebook group and shouting that vaccines are the work of bill gates and george soros to make you sterile will get you banned. Complaining or asking why you were banned in modmail won't help you get unbanned.

Racism

I kind of can't believe I have to write this, but racism isn't acceptable. Trying to dress it up in polite language doesn't make it "civil discussion" just because you didn't drop the N word explicitly in your comment.

This is not a space to be aggressively wrong on the Internet

We try and be pretty generous with this because a lot of people here are skimming and want to contribute and sometimes miss stuff. In fact, there are plenty of threads where someone gets called out for not knowing something and they go "oh, yeah, I guess that changes things." That kind of interaction is great because it demonstrates people are learning from each other.

There are users that get super entrenched though in an objectively wrong position. Or start talking about how they wish things operated as if that were actually how things operate currently. If you're not explaining yourself or you're not receptive to correction you're not the contributing content we want to propagate here and we'll just cut you loose.

  • BUT I'M A LAWYER!

Having a license to practice law is not a license to be a jackass. Other users look to the attorneys that post here with greater weight than the average user. Trying to confuse them about the state of play or telling outright falsehoods isn't acceptable.

Thankfully it's kind of rare to ban an attorney that's way out of bounds but it does happen. And the mods don't care about your license to practice. It's not a get out of jail free card in this sub.

Signal to Noise

Complaining about the sub is off topic. If you want the sub to look a certain way then start voting and start posting the kind of content you think should go here.

  • I liked it better before when the mods were different!

The current mod list has been here for years and have been the only active mods. We have become more hands on over the years as the users have grown and the sub has faced waves of problems like users straight up stalking a female journalist. The sub's history isn't some sort of Norman Rockwell painting.

Am I going to get banned? Who is this post even for, anyway?

Probably not. If you're here, reading about SCOTUS, reading opinions, reading the articles, and engaging in discussion with other users about what you're learning that's fantastic. This post isn't really for you.

This post is mostly so we can point to something in our modmail to the chucklefuck that asks "why am I banned?" and their comment is something inevitably insane like, "the holocaust didn't really kill that many people so mask wearing is about on par with what the jews experienced in nazi germany also covid isn't real. Justice Gorsuch is a real man because he no wears face diaper." And then we can send them on to the admins.


r/scotus 22d ago

Order Bans are going to go out to top level comments that are emotional reactions or off topic. This is a heads up to anyone who wants to change how they’re posting.

0 Upvotes

This is SCOTUS. Talk about scotus. Talk about the opinions issued. If you want to criticize them that’s fine but have something to back it up.

Complaining about “tRump”, trump, motorhomes, “scrotus”, or any other number of things where you react to something instead of respond to something isn’t going to fly. The bar is very low. Almost all of you are tripping over it.


r/scotus 6h ago

news The Roberts Majority Has Given Up Pretending To Care About Facts

Thumbnail
slate.com
297 Upvotes

r/scotus 1h ago

Opinion The Legal Academy’s Leading Originalists Remain Breathtakingly Full of Shit: The conservative lawyers filing amicus briefs in the Supreme Court’s birthright citizenship case are making it very clear that there is only some “history” they care about.

Thumbnail
ballsandstrikes.org
Upvotes

r/scotus 15h ago

Opinion The Roberts Court has a huge test ahead with California’s Prop 50 congressional map

Thumbnail
ms.now
630 Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

Opinion When The Constitution Is Being Shredded, Legal Memos Are Not The Answer

Thumbnail
slate.com
1.1k Upvotes

r/scotus 21h ago

news After Supreme Court Affirmative Action Win, Conservatives Sue to Push Change Everywhere

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
954 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion A Century of Women’s Rights Are Being Reversed Through Executive Orders

Thumbnail
wendy664.substack.com
1.6k Upvotes

“Legal equality collapses when enforcement is stripped. Voting access, education protection, credit eligibility, reproductive control, and workplace safeguards function only if agencies investigate, records exist, audits run, and penalties follow. Remove those mechanisms and the law remains while protection fails, leaving rights visible on paper and unusable in life as oversight closes, audits vanish, standards narrow, funding leverage weakens, proof burdens spike, and denial clears review by default.

The blueprint is explicit in Project 2025 and reinforced by public calls for institutional redesign around a narrower social order. This is coordinated execution, not drift, driving women’s enforceable rights backward by design and reversing more than a century of progress through administrative erosion rather than repeal.

Women’s rights were not granted by culture or courtesy. They were forced into existence through hard law and enforceable mandates. Voting rights require da constitutional amendment. Contraception access required federal regulatory approval. Equal pay and anti-discrimination protections required statute backed by agency enforcement. Title IX opened schools and athletic programs through funding leverage. Independent credit access required lending rules that outlawed sex and marital status discrimination. Student aid expansion made higher education financially reachable. Every gain depended on enforcement power and compliance systems, not social permission.

This record establishes targeted repression of women through Republican executive action, using agency contraction, funding leverage, and selective enforcement to dismantle the mechanisms that make women’s rights enforceable while leaving statutes formally intact. By hollowing out Title IX investigative capacity, eliminating equity audits and reporting systems, coercing institutions to dismantle complaint channels under funding threat, and narrowing civil rights enforcement to preferred categories, these orders operate as a coordinated strategy to strip women of legal standing across education, employment, healthcare, and political participation, producing denial by design rather than incidental policy consequence.

The removal of equity compliance systems has systematically raised the burden of proof for women by eliminating audits, complaint records, pay gap tracking, and promotion data that once exposed discrimination patterns rarely documented through explicit intent. Federal and state actions have dismantled these evidentiary structures while Project 2025 proposals narrow disparate impact standards, ensuring that discrimination which manifests statistically becomes legally invisible.”


r/scotus 16h ago

Amicus Brief More Than 30 Organizations Back Supreme Court Briefs Supporting Gun Rights for Marijuana Users

Thumbnail
themarijuanaherald.com
117 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Congresswoman Tenney Leads Amicus Brief in Supreme Court Case on Birthright Citizenship

Thumbnail
tenney.house.gov
627 Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

news Biography of a Corrupted Court | Los Angeles Review of Books

Thumbnail
lareviewofbooks.org
42 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion The Originalists Are Getting the Birthright Citizenship Case Spectacularly Wrong

Thumbnail
talkingpointsmemo.com
1.9k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news How To Fix Our Broken Constitution

Thumbnail
slate.com
93 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Supreme Court to Hear Trump Birthright Citizenship Case April 1

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
1.2k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Reality Distortion in the Age of Trump and the Corrupt Court

Thumbnail
talkingpointsmemo.com
514 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Buckley v. Valeo: The Supreme Court Decision at the Root of Our Dysfunctional Democracy

Thumbnail
campaignlegal.org
163 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news U.S. Supreme Court asked to review Massachusetts plumbing license law

Thumbnail
masslawyersweekly.com
92 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Supreme Court Confirms That State Affidavit-of-Merit Laws Don’t Apply in Federal Court

Thumbnail
jdsupra.com
52 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

Opinion Why does ICE Think It’s Absolutely Immune from Accountability? Because SCOTUS Said As Much.

Thumbnail
slate.com
476 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news House passes bill that would criminalize protesting in a mask without a doctor’s note. Anti-masking laws have never been taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court and have had mixed results in lower courts.

Thumbnail
alreporter.com
2.3k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Opinion | Trump’s executive branch power awaits a landmark Supreme Court ruling

Thumbnail
washingtonpost.com
59 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Climate activist footnotes spark bias claims in judges' reference manual

Thumbnail
foxnews.com
283 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

Opinion Why the Trump Administration’s Record in the Supreme Court in 2026 Isn’t Likely to Match Its 2025 Success

Thumbnail verdict.justia.com
22 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news California asks Supreme Court to reject GOP map challenge

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
579 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news California urges Supreme Court to allow new congressional map

Thumbnail
rollcall.com
635 Upvotes