Why do courts issue written opinions and explain their rulings? Explore how judicial reasoning promotes transparency, accountability, precedent, consistency, and meaningful appellate review.
An examination of America's mortgage default system, including nonjudicial foreclosures, loss mitigation, property valuations, HOA liens and nationwide legal services.
Court-ordered community service is supposed to require actual service. But documented schemes have sold certificates claiming defendants completed hours they never worked, turning a sentencing requirement into a piece of paper.
The Supreme Court follows precedent, but precedent is not unchangeable. From segregation and economic regulation to privacy and abortion, some landmark rulings exist because the Court concluded an earlier Supreme Court decision should no longer control.
From the early web to smartphones, social media and computer databases, courts have repeatedly decided how old constitutional protections apply to technologies their authors could never have imagined.
Some famous lawsuits appear to be about environmental protection, marriage, government policy or constitutional rights. But before a court can decide who is right, it may have to answer a more basic question: does this person have the right to bring the case at all?
AI can produce images, music, writing and software in seconds, but copyright law was built around human creators. Courts and the Copyright Office are defining where human authorship ends and machine generation begins.
Social media posts can survive for years through screenshots, account records and other copies. When a lawsuit, criminal case or other dispute begins, an old post can become evidence with consequences its author never anticipated.
Hours of surveillance footage can matter less than a few decisive seconds. A brief recording can contradict a witness, establish a timeline, reveal what happened before an encounter, or completely change how a case is understood.
The person who knows the most about a case may never testify. Death, disappearance, privilege, the Fifth Amendment and strategic decisions can leave jurors deciding what happened without hearing from a crucial witness.
Modern cars can generate location, navigation and driving data long after a trip ends. When police investigate a crime, information created by the vehicle itself can become evidence.
Deleting a text, photo, email or file does not always destroy it. Copies, backups, cloud systems, recipients and forensic recovery can allow supposedly deleted evidence to reappear months or years later.
Some cases have no eyewitness, confession or video of the critical event. Instead, lawyers build the story from timing, records, behavior, physical evidence and dozens of facts that may look insignificant until they are put together.
Some cases turn on evidence that was there from the beginning but seemed unimportant at first. A receipt, photograph, timestamp or forgotten record can take on an entirely different meaning once a case reaches trial.
DNA can identify more than the person who provided it. Genetic genealogy can use biological relationships to generate investigative leads, raising lasting questions about crime solving, family privacy and genetic data.
Facial recognition and other automated systems can give police powerful investigative leads. When the technology makes a mistake, however, an innocent person can suddenly become the focus of an investigation.
Screenshots of texts, social media posts and websites appear in court every day. But a screenshot does not prove itself. Courts still have to determine what it shows, where it came from and whether it is authentic.
A case can have strong evidence and still unravel because of a missed deadline, lost record, inconsistent statement or procedural mistake. Some of the most consequential failures in litigation have little to do with who was originally right.
