{"id":211,"date":"2026-06-18T13:10:24","date_gmt":"2026-06-18T13:10:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211"},"modified":"2026-06-18T13:10:24","modified_gmt":"2026-06-18T13:10:24","slug":"opinions-on-their-way","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211","title":{"rendered":"Opinions on their way"},"content":{"rendered":"

As we noted in Monday\u2019s newsletter, we are expecting 20 more opinions in argued cases by early July. The court has indicated that one or more will come today, and we will be live blogging beginning at 9:30 a.m. EDT.<\/p>

Read more Announcement of opinions for Thursday, June 18<\/a><\/p>

Plus, a reminder: If you\u2019d like to attend our July 8 term-in-review event at Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg Center, register your interest here. The event will feature a fireside chat with the ACLU\u2019s Cecillia Wang, who argued the birthright citizenship case before the Supreme Court; a live taping of the Advisory Opinions podcast; and a discussion of the historical framework of birthright citizenship from Johns Hopkins professor Martha S. Jones.<\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

After any opinion announcements this morning, the justices will meet in a private conference to discuss cases and vote on petitions for review. Orders from today\u2019s conference are expected on Monday at 9:30 a.m. EDT.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

The Supreme Court will be closed tomorrow in recognition of Juneteenth. We will be sending an abridged version of this newsletter.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

How a Conservative Nonprofit Won a Huge Case Against Trump and Suffered for It<\/h3>

Lydia Wheeler, The Wall Street Journal<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

Liberty Justice Center \u201cspent $3.5 million challenging the legality of President Trump\u2019s global tariffs,\u201d and, in February, secured a major Supreme Court win. But rather than receiving a surge in support as a result of its work on the tariff litigation, the conservative nonprofit has been navigating a variety of challenges, including losing some long-time conservative donors, according to The Wall Street Journal, which noted that the group \u201csays it lost a little over 30% of its donors because of the case.\u201d Still, the organization isn\u2019t backing down from the tariff fight and is currently challenging new tariffs imposed after the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling. \u201cIt\u2019s certainly the most important work I\u2019ve ever done and I think a lot of our team feels that way,\u201d Sara Albrecht, Liberty Justice Center\u2019s CEO, said.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

How a Supreme Court case could affect military voting<\/h3>

Sarah D. Wire, USA Today<\/p>

The Supreme Court is expected to rule soon in a case \u201con whether states can offer grace periods for when election officials receive ballots postmarked by Election Day.\u201d A decision eliminating such grace periods \u201ccould make it more difficult for hundreds of thousands of military members stationed overseas or at bases far from home to vote,\u201d according to USA Today. \u201cIn 2024, military and overseas ballots were rejected for lateness at more than eight times the rate of domestic mail ballots,\u201d as reported by the Bipartisan Policy Center.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Georgia state House lawmakers will not redraw voting districts during special session<\/h3>

Dan Raby, CBS News<\/p>

In May, “weeks after the Supreme Court issued its 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais,” Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp called a special legislative session for state lawmakers to redraw Georgia’s legislative maps, “saying the court’s ruling made clear that Georgia would need new electoral maps before the 2028 presidential election,” according to\u00a0CBS News. But as that special session got underway on Wednesday, top Georgia lawmakers notified Kemp that they would not yet work on new maps, in part because they believe they need more time “to understand the full implications of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision.” The lawmakers said they would instead “focus the session on tax relief and ratifying the state’s gas tax suspension.”<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Collins does \u2018not regret\u2019 support for Kavanaugh but \u2018disappointed\u2019 with his landmark abortion ruling<\/h3>

Alexander Bolton, The Hill<\/p>

As she continues to face pushback during her reelection campaign over her vote to confirm Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, is drawing a distinction between her support for Kavanaugh\u2019s nomination and her view on his vote to overturn Roe v. Wade<\/em> in 2022, according to The Hill. \u201cCollins told News Center Maine in a televised interview that she does not rue her support for Kavanaugh\u2019s confirmation, arguing he was qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, but she disagreed with his decision to give states the power to set their own laws restricting abortion.\u201d \u201cI do not regret that vote. I do disagree with Justice Kavanaugh\u2019s vote,\u201d Collins said.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Louisiana watches closely as Supreme Court stops nitrogen execution in Alabama<\/h3>

Greg LaRose, Louisiana Illuminator<\/p>

Last week, the Supreme Court declined to pause or vacate a lower court ruling barring Alabama from executing Jeffery Lee with nitrogen gas. The justices\u2019 decision caught the attention of officials in Louisiana, the only other state that has carried out a nitrogen gas execution, according to the Louisiana Illuminator. Louisiana approved the execution method \u201cin March 2024 because lethal injection drugs became scarce.\u201d In a social media post, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill described the delay in Lee\u2019s execution as \u201ca miscarriage of justice\u201d and said Louisiana \u201cwill support Alabama in getting this matter quickly resolved.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
From the SCOTUSblog Team<\/span>

Is the Supreme Court running behind?<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

When the justices take the bench today to issue opinions, the court will have 20 cases left to decide, with just under two weeks to go before the end of June. Amy explored how that compares to the past five terms.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Court News<\/span>

Roy Moore files emergency application with Supreme Court on $8.2 million jury award<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Roy Moore, the former chief justice of the Alabama Supreme Court, came to the U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday, asking the justices to block a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit from going into effect while he appeals that decision. If the lower court\u2019s decision is not put on hold but he ultimately prevails, Moore told the justices, he may not be able to recover the $8.2 million that the jury awarded him.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Relist Watch<\/span>

Bivens at the bedside <\/h3>

By John Elwood<\/p>

In his Relist Watch column, John Elwood highlighted two petitions for review that will be considered by the justices for a second time at today\u2019s conference: Nielsen v. Watanabe and Mohan v. Watkins. Both petitions address what circumstances allow a prisoner to seek damages from prison officials.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
Contributor Corner<\/span>

Supreme Court may decide important case on immigration detention regarding attorneys\u2019 fees <\/h3>

By C\u00e9sar Cuauht\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez<\/p>

In his Immigration Matters column, C\u00e9sar Cuaut\u00e9moc Garc\u00eda Hern\u00e1ndez analyzed a petition for review asking the justices to decide whether attorneys who challenge the Department of Homeland Security\u2019s decision to detain a migrant can recover fees from the government. If they cannot, \u201cit will be much more difficult for migrants to find attorneys willing to bring lawsuits challenging the legal basis of their detention,\u201d C\u00e9sar contended.<\/p>

Read more Roy Moore files emergency application with Supreme Court on $8.2 million jury award<\/a><\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
A Closer Look<\/div>

Pharms v. United States<\/h3><\/div>

In October 2014, the Supreme Court denied review in Jones v. United States<\/em>, a case on \u201ca judge\u2019s power to impose a longer sentence by relying on conduct that the jury rejected as evidence of guilt,\u201d as Lyle Denniston explained for SCOTUSblog. Lyle noted that this practice had long been the subject of debate, and that Justice Antonin Scalia was not happy with the court\u2019s decision to turn down the case. \u201cThis has gone on long enough,\u201d Scalia wrote in a dissent from the denial, which was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg.<\/p>

Twelve years later, the court still hasn\u2019t taken up the issue, although in 2023, four justices \u2013 Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett \u2013 acknowledged its significance as they turned down several related petitions for review, signaling that they preferred to wait for the U.S. Sentencing Commission to address it. The next year, the commission did so, updating the federal sentencing guidelines in an attempt to limit judges\u2019 authority to include acquitted conduct in their sentencing decisions. But the 2024 amendment did not end the practice of \u2013 or debate over \u2013 acquitted-conduct sentencing. This explains why the justices are again being asked to address it in a petition for review expected to be conferenced this week.<\/p>

The instant petition centers on Keith Pharms, who in 2024 was convicted \u201cof five criminal charges arising from his involvement in a shooting at a federal officer in the aftermath of a car theft and his subsequent conduct while in custody,\u201d as the U.S. Court of the Appeals for the 11th Circuit explained when considering his case. One of those charges was \u201cusing a firearm during a crime of violence.\u201d The jury convicted Pharms on this count, but it did not find that he had fired the weapon, which would have increased his minimum sentence.<\/p>

Despite the jury\u2019s decision, the district court judge treated Pharms as if he had been the shooter during sentencing, explaining that this conclusion was supported by a \u201cpreponderance of the evidence,\u201d which is an evidence standard employed by judges during sentencing and which is a lower threshold than \u201cbeyond a reasonable doubt,\u201d the standard that guides juries. Pharms was sentenced to 192 months in prison, reduced by his time served.<\/p>

Pharms appealed to the 11th Circuit, contending that his sentence violated the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, which guarantee a right to due process and a right to a jury trial, respectively. Specifically, he asserted that acquitted-conduct sentencing deprived him of these rights by punishing him for conduct that was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury. The federal court of appeals rejected these arguments.<\/p>

In his , Pharms emphasizes that justices \u201chave repeatedly questioned the constitutionality of enhancing a criminal defendant\u2019s sentence based on acquitted conduct\u201d and urges the court to take up his case and \u201csquarely address[]\u201d whether acquitted-conduct sentencing violates the Fifth or Sixth Amendments. He also highlights a split between federal courts of appeals, which \u201cuniformly have upheld\u201d this sentencing practice, and state supreme courts, many of which \u201chave held the practice unconstitutional.\u201d \u201cIndeed, if petitioner had been prosecuted in Georgia state court rather than federal court there, his sentence could not have been enhanced for conduct of which the jury had acquitted him,\u201d according to the petition.<\/p>

In the federal government\u2019s to Pharms\u2019 petition, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asserts that the Supreme Court \u201chas long upheld a district court\u2019s authority to consider such conduct\u201d proven \u201cby a preponderance of the evidence\u201d during the sentencing phase of a trial and asks the justices to deny review in Pharms\u2019 case, as they have \u201crecently and repeatedly\u201d done with other petitions \u201craising similar questions.\u201d If there is lingering confusion or concern surrounding acquitted conduct sentencing, he continues, it would be best left to Congress or the U.S. Sentencing Commission to address.<\/p>

Additionally, Sauer, as Pharms did, points to the agreement between federal courts of appeals on this issue, but he presents it as evidence that the case is not worth the court\u2019s time. \u201c[U]niformity on the question presented is a reason to deny review, not to grant it,\u201d Sauer writes.<\/p>

Pharms v. United States<\/em> is scheduled to be considered by the justices for the first time at their private conference on Thursday.<\/p>

Disclosure: SCOTUSblog columnist John Elwood represents Keith Pharms. Elwood had no involvement with this Closer Look.<\/em><\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

\u201cThe motives behind the state law may have been to do good. But the same can be said about most laws making opinions punishable as crimes. History indicates that urges to do good have led to the burning of books, and even to the burning of \u2018witches.\u2019\u201d<\/p>

Read more Is the Supreme Court running behind?<\/a><\/p>

\u2014 Justice Hugo Black in Beauharnais v. Illinois<\/em> (1952)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, is the Supreme Court running behind compared to the past five terms?<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-211","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-contributor-corner","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nOpinions on their way - 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=211\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Opinions on their way - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, is the Supreme Court running behind compared to the past five terms?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/2d1fd533dfc9a891be659fac88235fb6.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1333\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\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=211#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Opinions on their way\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211\"},\"wordCount\":1950,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Contributor Corner\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211\",\"name\":\"Opinions on their way - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=211#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Opinions on their way\"}]},{\"@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":"Opinions on their way - 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=211","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Opinions on their way - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, is the Supreme Court running behind compared to the past five terms?","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/06\/2d1fd533dfc9a891be659fac88235fb6.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"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=211#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Opinions on their way","datePublished":"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211"},"wordCount":1950,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Contributor Corner","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211","name":"Opinions on their way - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-18T13:10:24+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=211#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Opinions on their way"}]},{"@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\/211","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=211"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/211\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/17"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=211"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=211"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=211"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}