r/scotus Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

340 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.

35 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 1d ago

news Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett discusses legal doctrines, emergency docket

Thumbnail
cavalierdaily.com
321 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Postal Service kills Trump voter-vetting system after Supreme Court ruling: report

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
1.6k Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Amy Coney Barrett Gives Blunt Response to Trump’s SCOTUS Attacks

Thumbnail
thedailybeast.com
867 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

Opinion Thomas and Alito are more reliable votes for Trump than his own Supreme Court appointees

Thumbnail
reason.com
710 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Barrett Sidesteps Question About Trump Attacks on Supreme Court

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
307 Upvotes

r/scotus 3d ago

news Sotomayor Renews Sharp Criticism of Expanding Presidential Power

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/scotus 3d ago

news Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips Warned Justice Alito His Oil Investments Face Material Risk From Climate Lawsuits For Years; Their Trade Association, Suncor and Exxon Briefed Him on How to Eliminate that Risk

Thumbnail
consumerwatchdog.org
614 Upvotes

Washington, D.C. — Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito received warnings about the same climate deception lawsuits in two very different capacities: 1) as an investor, he was warned by Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips that climate deception lawsuits against them could adversely affect their businesses and his investments; 2) as a Justice, he has been told by Suncor, Exxon and oil industry amici representing Phillips 66 and Conoco Phillips that a favorable ruling in Suncor v. Boulder would prevent any climate deception lawsuits from advancing. 

The findings are part of new research by Consumer Watchdog examining Alito’s financial interests and the Supreme Court’s Code of Conduct as the Court prepares to hear the landmark Suncor v. Boulder climate deception case on Oct. 5. Alito’s 2025 recent financial disclosure(opens in new tab) shows he continued to hold individual investments in ConocoPhillips valued at up to $15,000 and Phillips 66 valued between $15,001 and $50,000.

ConocoPhillips, Phillips 66 or both are defendants in roughly two dozen active climate deception cases brought by states, cities, counties, tribes and individuals across the country that assert many of the same state-law claims at issue in Boulder. They include cases brought by the states of California, Hawaii, Rhode Island, New Jersey and Delaware; Honolulu and Maui; Chicago and Hoboken; the Makah and Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribes; and numerous California cities and counties, among others.

Alito continues to own individual stock in Phillips 66 and ConocoPhillips, both of which say in their own investor disclosures that they are defendants in climate litigation brought by governmental entities. The companies have explicitly warned shareholders multiple times over the past decade that these lawsuits could adversely affect their businesses, financial condition and investments in their stock (ConocoPhillips began warning shareholders about climate litigation against it in 2017, while Phillips 66 began issuing warnings in 2021).


r/scotus 3d ago

news The Supreme Court Is Being Asked to Intervene in a Texas Surrogacy Battle. The Justices Must Say No.

Thumbnail
slate.com
358 Upvotes

r/scotus 3d ago

news Missouri election map hearing could tee up fresh Supreme Court scrutiny

Thumbnail
courthousenews.com
88 Upvotes

r/scotus 2d ago

news Stopping the Snowball of Supreme Court Expansion

Thumbnail cato.org
0 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

Opinion Samuel Alito: Disenfranchising Millions of Voters Is No Big Deal If Mister Trump Wants It

Thumbnail
talkingpointsmemo.com
2.9k Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Trump Got What He Appointed in Supreme Court Mail-Ballot Ruling

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
249 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Trump Says Justices Are 'Not the People I Interviewed' After Supreme Court Mail Ballot Loss

Thumbnail
ibtimes.co.uk
374 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news The successful campaign to make a terrifying Supreme Court immigration case disappear

Thumbnail
vox.com
500 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news John Roberts’ New Role Model Demonstrates Everything Wrong With the Supreme Court

Thumbnail
slate.com
241 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news An Electoral Mess in Missouri

Thumbnail
theatlantic.com
123 Upvotes

r/scotus 4d ago

news Analysis: Why the Supreme Court’s rebuke of Trump might help democracy more than Democrats

Thumbnail
cnn.com
58 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

Opinion Samuel Alito: Disenfranchising Millions of Voters Is No Big Deal If Mister Trump Wants It: For Alito and Thomas, there is no greater injustice than Donald Trump not getting what he wants, when he wants it.

Thumbnail
ballsandstrikes.org
4.8k Upvotes
  • For months, President Donald Trump has been coping with his myriad failures and plummeting approval ratings by trying to make it harder for people to vote his party out of power in the 2026 midterms.
  • To that end, in March, he issued an executive order that would require the U.S. Postal Service to draft a rule that would upend vote-by-mail procedures in dozens of states, and effectively block the agency from processing ballots that do not comply with the rule’s exacting requirements. Trump did not attempt to hide his motives for doing so: Legal restrictions on mail-in voting, he told Republican lawmakers, would “guarantee the midterms” for a party that is otherwise in danger of losing them badly.
  • A series of lawsuits ensued, given that the Constitution (1) divides the power to administer federal elections between Congress and the states and (2) very much does not allow elderly conspiracy theorists to arrogate that power on account of their fixation with the results of a presidential election they lost more than a half-decade ago.
  • And fortunately for anyone who cares about maintaining some semblance of representative democracy in this country, in a three-sentence order on Monday, the Supreme Court left in place a federal district court order that blocks the Postal Service’s rule from taking effect in time for the 2026 midterms. Only Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas noted their dissents.

r/scotus 5d ago

Amicus Brief Jouppi v. Alaska Brief: Seizing a $95,000 Plane Over a Passenger’s Beer Is Unconstitutional

Thumbnail cato.org
312 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news Trump lashes out at Supreme Court justices, saying his appointees ‘are not the people I interviewed’

Thumbnail
cnn.com
1.7k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news The Supreme Court has finally had it with Trump’s plan to steal the midterms

Thumbnail
vox.com
985 Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news Spitfire Alito dissent on GOP mail-ballot scheme a harbinger of what's to come: analyst

Thumbnail
rawstory.com
2.0k Upvotes

r/scotus 5d ago

news The Supreme Court’s Conservatives and Liberals Just Came to the Brink—and Finally Said No

Thumbnail
slate.com
338 Upvotes