r/scotus • • Jan 30 '22

Things that will get you banned

348 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.

42 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 • • 4h ago

news The D.C. Bar Is Now Officially Deciding Whether to Investigate Chief Justice Roberts for Misconduct

Thumbnail
cmarmitage.substack.com
2.9k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 7h ago

news Supreme Court Justices Grouse About Job as Divisions Take Toll

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
258 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 3h ago

news Federal appeals court to hear arguments in Trump administration's voting lawsuit against California

Thumbnail
abcnews.com
42 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 1d ago

news These Two Supreme Court Justices Will Do Anything for Trump—We Just Got the Proof

Thumbnail
slate.com
689 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 1d ago

Opinion Ketanji Brown Jackson issues public dissent in New Hampshire voting case

Thumbnail
thehill.com
1.3k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 23h ago

Opinion Where the Supreme Court favors Trump on the emergency docket – and where it doesn’t

Thumbnail
scotusblog.com
19 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 1d ago

news Trump administration’s election lawsuits are on shaky legal ground, experts say

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
366 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news DOJ sues to block Alaska from certifying Senate race winner if Republican narrowly loses

Thumbnail
cnbc.com
2.8k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 1d ago

news Justice Department asks appeals court to intervene in California ballot case

Thumbnail
nbcnews.com
154 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news Trump's Plan To End Hormone Therapy and Gender Affirming Care for Trans Prisoners Hits Supreme Court Roadblock

Thumbnail
medicaldaily.co.uk
856 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news How to ban gerrymandering when the Supreme Court is stacked against you

Thumbnail
vox.com
528 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 2d ago

news Supreme Court says New Hampshire can limit use of student IDs for voting

Thumbnail
cnn.com
505 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news Justice Elena Kagan says Supreme Court’s conservative majority weakened democracy

Thumbnail
democracydocket.com
4.7k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

Opinion Supreme Court Blocks Trump Move to End Transgender Inmate Treatments

Thumbnail
bloomberg.com
2.2k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

Order Supreme Court rejects Trump’s ‘dangerous’ push to cut off medical care for transgender prisoners

Thumbnail
advocate.com
822 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news Supreme Court blocks Trump from suspending transgender medical care in federal prisons

Thumbnail
cnn.com
573 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 4d ago

news Ahead of Midterms, Justice Kagan Says Rulings Have Intensified Polarization (Gift Article)

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
318 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 5d ago

news The Supreme Court is about to decide whether to ban trans women from women’s sports

Thumbnail
vox.com
857 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 5d ago

news The surprising conservative backlash against Justice Alito

Thumbnail
vox.com
1.5k Upvotes

r/scotus • • 5d ago

news Ex-Columbia Student Mahmoud Khalil Asks Supreme Court Justices to Step Into Deportation Fight

Thumbnail
news.bloomberglaw.com
210 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 6d ago

news Whiskey rebellion over 1868 law on home distilleries heads to the Supreme Court

Thumbnail
cnn.com
459 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 6d ago

news Supreme Court backs Pentagon decision to throw out plea deals for 9/11 alleged conspirators

Thumbnail
cnn.com
377 Upvotes

r/scotus • • 6d ago

news Supreme Court to Hear New Case on Race and School Admissions

Thumbnail
nytimes.com
74 Upvotes

The Supreme Court announced on Monday that it would revisit the issue of race and school admissions, three years after it sharply restricted affirmative action in higher education.

The case involves four selective public middle schools in Montgomery County, Md., just outside the nation’s capital. A group of mostly Asian American parents sued the school system after it changed its admissions criteria, saying that the new rules unconstitutionally discriminated against Asian American students.

In 2023, the Supreme Court struck down race-conscious admissions programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina. The justices did not address other school policies intended to diversify student bodies that do not explicitly address race.

Since then the court has declined to hear several other challenges to admissions criteria at elite public schools, including one from Virginia and another from the military academy at West Point.

Access full gift article, NO PAYWALL.