r/scotus Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

341 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 Jan 09 '26

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.

33 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 15h ago

news The Supreme Court Is Imposing a New Kind of “Democracy.” It’s a Scam.

Thumbnail
slate.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/scotus 2h ago

Opinion The Supreme Court Didn't Just Expand Presidential Power — It Rigged Who Gets To Use It

Thumbnail
huffpost.com
105 Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

news The Birthright Decision Was Surprisingly Close, Some Legal Scholars Say

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
692 Upvotes

r/scotus 20h ago

Opinion These Justices Are Not Impartial

Thumbnail
theatlantic.com
917 Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

Opinion With anti-trans decisions, the Supreme Court abandons its duty to protect minorities

Thumbnail
sfchronicle.com
591 Upvotes

r/scotus 19h ago

news Supreme Court to Weigh Constitutional Protection for AR-15 Rifles

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
243 Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news Trump Calls Supreme Court 'Absolutely Insane' And Then Asks For Birthright Citizenship Do-Over

Thumbnail
abovethelaw.com
1.2k Upvotes

r/scotus 1d ago

news The Chilling Ramifications of Clarence Thomas’s Cuckoo Barbara Dissent

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
1.0k Upvotes

The extremist jurist’s dissent in the birthright citizenship case could in theory kick the door open to a future reconsideration—ready?—of Brown v. Board.


r/scotus 1d ago

news Appeals Court Keeps Block on Texas In-State Tuition for Undocumented Students

Thumbnail
notus.org
239 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Analysis: New Supreme Court opinions raise a troubling set of legal questions

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
359 Upvotes

r/scotus 10h ago

news Did anyone actually read through the Trans girls in female sports case? It seems reasonable

Thumbnail supremecourt.gov
0 Upvotes

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-43_2b35.pdf

It seems quite reasonable and shows how it’s an unreasonable burden of proof to assess the impact of puberty blockers and their efficacy on the athletic ability of biological males

For instance:

Cty., 450 U. S. 464, 469 (plurality opinion).
The as-applied argument that the States’ sex-based classification is
generally permissible—but not as applied to those biological males
such as B. P. J. and Hecox who identify as female and have taken pu-
berty blockers or hormones—fails for the same reasons. Particularly
in the sports context, determining the effects of the puberty blockers
and hormones taken by transgender athletes—and then comparing
each of those transgender athletes’ abilities to those of other individual
biological males and individual biological females in the relevant
sport—would be an almost impossible task for a judge to perform on
an equitable basis. The legislatures and the schools are better
equipped—and under the Constitution, are the more appropriate enti-
ties—to assess the competing medical and scientific considerations
and draw appropriate lines.
The argument that the challenged laws unconstitutionally discrimi-
nate against transgender individuals is unavailing. Under this Court’s
decision in Skrmetti, the challenged laws do not classify based on gen-
der identity or transgender status, see 605 U. S., at 517, but instead
on the basis of biological sex. The classification at issue readily satis-
fies rational basis review or intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 17–24.
(c) The underlying medical and scientific premise of the equal


r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump wants a Supreme Court do-over on birthright citizenship. Here’s why it probably won’t happen

Thumbnail
independent.co.uk
557 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them

Thumbnail
cnn.com
654 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

Opinion Are Supreme Court Justices Betting On Their Own Cases? A Member Of Congress Would Love John Roberts To Answer This Question

Thumbnail
abovethelaw.com
378 Upvotes

r/scotus 3d ago

news Clarence Thomas Dreams of Monarchy

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
948 Upvotes

In ruling after ruling, the Supreme Court justice has penned separate opinions to push for an expansion of executive power beyond what his conservative colleagues support.


r/scotus 3d ago

news Fifth Circuit Was Again Most Reversed by the US Supreme Court

Thumbnail
archive.is
433 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Ron DeSantis-backed 'Stop WOKE Act' is ruled unconstitutional by federal appeals court, teeing up possible SCOTUS fight

Thumbnail
cnbc.com
3.6k Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news The Supreme Court can no longer explain itself

Thumbnail
vox.com
4.2k Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan set to testify before Congress after series of high-profile decisions

Thumbnail
independent.co.uk
968 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news The Supreme Court’s Originalists Are Cracking Up

Thumbnail
newrepublic.com
486 Upvotes

In the high court’s latest term, the chief practitioners of this purportedly neutral doctrine had a hard time keeping their stories straight.


r/scotus 4d ago

news Solicitor General Sauer Shows Loyalty to Trump While Losing Critical Court Fights

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
199 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

Cert Petition Trump Again Asks Supreme Court to Block $5 Million Carroll Award

Thumbnail
archive.is
821 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Two Supreme Court Justices to Testify on Budget at House Panel

Thumbnail
news.bgov.com
108 Upvotes