{"id":172,"date":"2026-06-10T14:12:28","date_gmt":"2026-06-10T14:12:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172"},"modified":"2026-06-10T14:12:28","modified_gmt":"2026-06-10T14:12:28","slug":"the-supreme-courts-confusing-use-of-principles","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Last December I published a column entitled \u201cParty presentation: a mysterious new rule?\u201d, addressing a summary reversal in a criminal case, Clark v. Sweeney<\/em>. On May 26, the court the lower court in another case, Margolin v. NAIJ<\/em>, citing the same \u201cparty presentation principle,\u201d which it now referred to as a \u201crule.\u201d Then two days later, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, writing for a in a , Fernandez v. United States<\/em>, relied on a different idea, an \u201canticircumvention principle.\u201d (Notably, Steve Vladeck this week wrote about the court\u2019s confusing use of yet another principle, the \u201cPurcell<\/em> principle,\u201d related to election law.)<\/p>\n

Read more When must justices recuse themselves over family members\u2019 acts?<\/a><\/p>\n

Where do these principles come from? No constitutional or statutory text expresses them. Are they \u201crules\u201d that dispositively decide cases, or merely standards subject to court discretion? Given their apparent case-dispositive importance, the court should precisely describe and define these ideas, and particularly if employed as \u201crules\u201d to justify keeping a person in prison.<\/p>\n

The court\u2019s recent use of \u201cprinciples\u201d to decide criminal cases<\/strong><\/p>\n

Back in November in the court reversed a habeas decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit that had ordered a new trial in a second-degree murder case. Without noted dissent, the court wrote that the circuit had \u201cdeparted dramatically from the principle of party presentation\u201d by \u201crelying on a claim that Sweeney never asserted\u201d and \u201cthat the State never had the chance to address.\u201d\u00a0This \u201cprinciple\u201d appears to rest on the idea that courts should not raise new issues not actually presented by the parties. As I noted last December, the court did not address the actual legal reasoning of the 4th Circuit but instead reversed merely on this procedural point. I urged the court to explain exactly what the principle was and whether it has exceptions.\u00a0I noted that law and history are full of examples where judges have gone outside the parties\u2019 arguments, for example to correct \u201cmiscarriages of justice,\u201d and that this can correct for, frankly, inept lawyering. If \u201cno going beyond party presentation\u201d is now a dispositive \u201crule,\u201d I noted that it has no textual support in either a statue or Article III of the Constitution (which extends to all<\/em> federal questions).<\/p>\n

Six months later in a civil case, the court again wielded this apparently powerful tool, to summarily reverse the 4th Circuit (a favorite target these days) for \u201cviolat[ing] the principle of party presentation\u201d by relying \u201con an issue the parties had not raised\u201d and \u201cwithout giving either side a chance to address its theory.\u201d Directly invoking Clark v. Sweeney<\/em>, the court now described this principle as a \u201crule,\u201d quoting Justice Antonin Scalia from 34 years ago.<\/p>\n

At the tail end of that solo concurrence, Scalia had claimed that, absent this idea, our legal system would be an \u201cinquisitorial\u201d one. But there is nothing \u201cinquisitorial\u201d about judges trying to find the correct answer even if lawyers have not.\u00a0And, in any event, in the very next sentence, Scalia noted that he was rejecting the principle in that case and basing his disagreement on an argument not raised by the parties.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Here are two other points about the \u201cprinciple\u201d of party presentation. First, in support of it, the court has now repeatedly quoted Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg\u2019s opinion in 2008\u2019s\u00a0Greenlaw v. United States<\/em>, in which the justice blanketly stated that \u201c[i]n our adversarial system of adjudication, we follow the principle of party presentation.\u201d While invoking for the idea may shield it from dissent from the three \u201cliberal\u201d justices, Ginsburg herself noted in a that the principle was \u201cnot ironclad\u201d and subject to \u201cappropriate\u201d exceptions (although she did not describe what these might be). Meanwhile, in his dissent in Greenlaw<\/em>, Justice Samuel Alito made clear that \u201cwe should entrust the decision to initiate error correction to the sound discretion of the courts of appeal.\u201d That echoed Alito\u2019s statement at his confirmation hearing that the \u201ctask of the judiciary is to apply principles that are\u00a0in<\/em>\u00a0the Constitution, and not make up its own principles.\u201d But where was Alito\u2019s voice in Clark<\/em> or Magolin<\/em>?<\/p>\n

Second, if this \u201cprinciple\u201d includes a sub-principle that a court must first give the parties a chance to address a new idea that interests the court \u2013 as both Clark<\/em> and Margolin<\/em> appear to imply \u2013 why is the remedy to reverse the lower court\u2019s judgment in its entirely rather than to remand with instructions to allow the parties to respond to that new point? Or \u2013 as Justice Clarence Thomas once suggested when applying another \u201cprinciple of policy,\u201d stare decicis \u2013 why shouldn\u2019t the court address the legal merits<\/em> of a decision they do not like, rather than relying on an atextual \u201cprinciple\u201d of uncertain scope as well as origin? (Indeed, that is exactly what Thomas, joined by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, did in a separate concurrence in Margolin<\/em>.) But, alas, the court now appears to be silently using the party presentation principle to vacate and remand even more cases. On June 8, for example, the justices issued a two-sentence order remanding another 4th Circuit habeas case (Walters v. Coleman<\/em>) with no explanation other than \u201cfor further consideration in light of Clark v. Sweeney<\/em>.\u201d<\/p>\n

Finally, on my more general inquiry regarding \u201cprinciples\u201d being used as dispositive rules, two weeks ago the court affirmed the denial of a sentencing reduction in Fernandez v. United States<\/em> that courts may not consider, as an \u201cextraordinary and compelling\u201d reason under the federal compassionate relief statute, a claim of potential innocence presented 20 years later.\u00a0The court accepted that such a generalized approach to compassionate release would conflict with the more specific federal statute that allows federal inmates to collaterally attack their convictions even after being affirmed on direct appeal. To support its ruling, the majority referred (in footnote three) to \u201can anticircumvention principle\u201d which it drew out of two prior decisions. That idea is that parties may not use a general statute to \u201c\u2018impermissibly circumvent\u2019 the specific design\u201d of another statute.\u00a0While Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Elena Kagan, concurred on a much narrower ground, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented, arguing that the court \u201cd[id] not explain\u201d the precise meaning and limits of this principle.<\/p>\n

Are principles \u201crules,\u201d or just guidelines? What are their precise definitions?<\/strong><\/p>\n

An anticircumvention principle, like one of party presentation, might well be a sensible guideline for judicial administration. But if principles are going to be used as dispositive rules, to reverse judgments without looking at their merits, then lower courts as well as litigants need further clear and precise statements from the justices. They need to know what and when exceptions should be applied, and whether review will be for abuse of discretion (that the lower court decision was plainly erroneous) or some stricter standard. This is particularly true when dispositive principles, even if longstanding (like stare decisis) and sensible, are drawn from judicial experience and judgment but without textual endorsement in a statute or a congressionally-approved federal rule. To paraphrase Alito, again, the \u201ctask of the judiciary is to\u201d provide clear guidance and, in general, stick to Constitutional and statutory directions, \u201cand not make up its own principles.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n

Read more The latest on tariff refunds<\/a><\/p>\n

For starters, a rule of party presentation ought to include a strong guideline that a court must, before a final ruling, give the parties a fair opportunity to address new theories that have not been previously raised. This is consistent with the court\u2019s own practice of occasionally directing parties to address questions not previously presented in a case (, which was reargued after the court presented its own new question, is one such instance). Significantly, once such an opportunity has been provided and a court then rules, the need for an unwritten principle disappears. Instead, a reviewing court can directly evaluate the legal merits of the final ruling, whether or not a ground was raised early or \u201clate\u201d in the case.<\/p>\n

Indeed, it might be a fair general rule \u2013 general, not iron-clad \u2013 for appellate courts to decline from reviewing legal arguments which were not even hinted at by the parties. That idea is reflected in the court\u2019s own Rule 14.1(a) (\u201cOnly the questions set out in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.\u201d) Although such a rule may make sense for appellate courts, however, it is far less clear why this should be the case at a trial court level, where the parties as well as the judge are confronting difficult problems for the first time. And in any case, the Supreme Court ought not use an undeveloped and nontextual principle to avoid exposing internal division on the legal merits presented.<\/p>\n

As for anticircumvention, as Sotomayor\u2019s and Jackson\u2019s separate Fernandez<\/em> opinions explain, when there are textual statutory directions competing for attention \u2013 in that case, a direction that collateral attacks be governed by strict habeas rules, versus a direction that district judges may reduce sentences for \u201cextraordinary and compelling reasons\u201d \u2013 the majority needs to explain more precisely the rules for decision between the two. Barrett wrote for the majority that the two statutory directions could be construed \u201cin harmony\u201d rather than \u201cat cross-purposes,\u201d while Jackson wrote that \u201cone man\u2019s collateral attack is another man\u2019s compelling bid for compassion.\u201d But neither explained precisely how future courts should resolve such disagreements.<\/p>\n

Judicial \u201cprinciples\u201d more broadly<\/strong><\/p>\n

None of this is to say that such principles are groundless or invalid. Instead, their application simply needs more clear explanation and definition. Judicially developed \u201cprinciples\u201d developed to intelligently manage litigation have a deep historical pedigree. Indeed, Harvard Law Dean James described the principle of judicial review itself, endorsed in Marbury v. Madison<\/em> in 1803, as one of judicial \u201cadministration.\u201d So while the concept of a legal principle may be something less than an iron-clad rule, it should be more precisely described as stronger than just advice.\u00a0Undoubtedly, accepted legal principles (like judicial review) are critical for our legal system.\u00a0And not everything has to be endorsed in a statute \u2013 courts need stable rules of administration which (as I have suggested) lie within their authority as an independent branch of government.<\/p>\n

To be fair, the branch of legal philosophy surrounding \u201cprinciples\u201d \u2013 perhaps best associated with\u00a0Ronald Dworkin and his \u201cModel of Rules,\u201d as well as Herbert Wechsler\u2019s\u00a0seminal lecture \u201cToward Neutral Principles of Constitutional Law\u201d\u2013 is far too \u201cbig\u201d for a short SCOTUSblog column. And I risk drowning in debates well out of my depth. But today I am calling out what I see as a pattern of the court applying atextual \u201cprinciples\u201d to decide cases without precise definition and without explanation for why they are doing so. If these principles are going to be case-dispositive rules, then the court should say so.\u00a0And if there to be exceptions \u2013 as Ginsberg and Scalia both agreed there must be \u2013 then the court should say that, too, and give some guidance as to when. <\/p>\n

The current pattern of case-dispositive principles is especially disturbing when done summarily, without full briefing and oral argument \u2013 a practice which might itself be thought to transgress fair \u201cparty presentation\u201d rules. To some extent this tracks the critique of the \u201cshadow docket\u201d more generally, criticisms which the justices are beginning to hear and respond to. I urge them to also do so when applying \u201cprinciples\u201d to dispositively affect not only individual liberty but also our societal interest in having a stable and system of criminal law.<\/p>\n

PS: For an interesting conversation about a different principle, an Eighth Amendment (among other sources) \u201cprinciple of anti-ruination,\u201d catch the last 32 minutes of June 8\u2019s Strict Scrutiny podcast, discussing Professor Judith Resnik\u2019s new book Impermissible Punishments.<\/p>\n

Read more The Supreme Court\u2019s neutering of the First Step Act<\/a><\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Last December I published a column entitled \u201cParty presentation: a mysterious new rule?\u201d, addressing a summary reversal in a criminal case, Clark v. Sweeney. On May 26, the court the lower court in another case, Margolin v. NAIJ, citing the same \u201cparty presentation principle,\u201d which it now referred to as a \u201crule.\u201d Then two days […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":80,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,20],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-scotuscrim"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Last December I published a column entitled \u201cParty presentation: a mysterious new rule?\u201d, addressing a summary reversal in a criminal case, Clark v. Sweeney. On May 26, the court the lower court in another case, Margolin v. NAIJ, citing the same \u201cparty presentation principle,\u201d which it now referred to as a \u201crule.\u201d Then two days […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"10 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172\"},\"wordCount\":1974,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\",\"SCOTUSCrim\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172\",\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=172#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\",\"name\":\"American Service Review\",\"description\":\"\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review","og_description":"Last December I published a column entitled \u201cParty presentation: a mysterious new rule?\u201d, addressing a summary reversal in a criminal case, Clark v. Sweeney. On May 26, the court the lower court in another case, Margolin v. NAIJ, citing the same \u201cparty presentation principle,\u201d which it now referred to as a \u201crule.\u201d Then two days […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"10 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d","datePublished":"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172"},"wordCount":1974,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary","SCOTUSCrim"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172","name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-10T14:12:28+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/772489c900e9cbe918110bdd3288bea2.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=172#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Supreme Court\u2019s confusing use of \u201cprinciples\u201d"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/","name":"American Service Review","description":"","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/50b1ad2e498f523425ee0a8cc5180a210646db1622662a3d56cc405d3e0c346a?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["http:\/\/americanservicereview.com"],"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/172\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/80"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}