The first Monday in October brought some deeply disappointing news. Tom Goldstein announced there would be some changes to SCOTUSBlog. Now, there will be a “smaller team running the blog’s day-to-day operations.” For more than a decade, for every merits case, there would generally be two or three separate posts: a preview before oral argument, a review of oral argument, and an overview of the published decision. These posts would be written by scholars and other subject matter experts. This was an invaluable resource whenever I needed to get up to speed on an case outside my area of expertise. But now, SCOTUSBlog “will no longer have full coverage of every merits case.” Instead of this granular approach, the blog will cover “broader themes and threads.”
Goldstein also announced that the blog “scaled back our statistical coverage” and “will no longer publish our annual Stat Pack.” I already noticed this shortfall last Term. Indeed, in June, I contacted the blog to inquire about when the Stat Pack would be published. I was told that it would not be published. This was my go-to resource to understand trends on the Court. I was gobsmacked. I’m sure I was not alone. (Adam Feldman should start a Substack–I would subscribe.)
There were other noticeable cutbacks. One of my favorite features was Mark Walsh’s “View from the Court.” Mark would recount the visuals from inside the chamber, including fun interactions that would not be reflected in the transcript or recording. Those posts seem to have stopped. (Mark should start a Substack–I would subscribe.) I also noticed there were fewer symposiums on important cases. That deep coverage seemed to trickle down to a halt. Apparently the SCOTUSBlog podcast was on hiatus, but you all know my policy on podcasts. (You know it was really important for me to listen to this podcast–well, to be precise, I transcribed it, and jumped around to the relevant parts.)