{"id":364,"date":"2026-07-10T13:10:06","date_gmt":"2026-07-10T13:10:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364"},"modified":"2026-07-10T13:10:06","modified_gmt":"2026-07-10T13:10:06","slug":"the-rarity-of-supreme-court-do-overs","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364","title":{"rendered":"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs"},"content":{"rendered":"

Yesterday marked 158 years since the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The amendment, which, among other things, guarantees citizenship to \u201c[a]ll persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,\u201d was in the spotlight during the 2025-26 term, in large part because of the birthright citizenship case. That was also one of the many things discussed with Cecillia Wang, the national legal director of the ACLU, at our term-in-review event on Wednesday. For more on that, see the On Site section below.<\/p>

Read more At SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event, National Legal Director of the ACLU Cecillia Wang speaks about arguing birthright citizenship, the term in general, and what\u2019s next on the organization\u2019s docket<\/a><\/p>

Plus, don\u2019t miss SCOTUSblog executive editor Zach Shemtob\u2019s appearance on David Lat\u2019s Original Jurisdiction podcast, where he discussed key takeaways from the 2025-26 term.<\/p>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Trump seeks do-overs at a Supreme Court that rarely grants them<\/h3>

John Fritze, CNN<\/p>

At the Supreme Court, President Donald Trump is pursuing \u201cunlikely second chances\u201d in his appeal of a $5 million jury verdict and the birthright citizenship case. His legal team has already the court to reconsider its denial of his petition for review on the verdict, and the president has said that he will ask for a rehearing of Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, in which the court struck down Trump\u2019s executive order seeking to restrict access to birthright citizenship. CNN investigated how common it is for the court to grant such requests, noting that \u201c[t]he last time the Supreme Court entertained a request to review a decision in an argued appeal was in 1965.\u201d \u201cIt is extremely rare for the court to grant reconsideration,\u201d said Michael Dorf, a constitutional law professor at Cornell Law School, to CNN. \u201cWhen it does so, it is typically because some vital information was not before it originally.\u201d It is also rare for the court to reconsider a decision to deny an appeal, although that has happened much more recently. About a year ago, the court \u201cgranted such relief … in a case involving a federal anti-doping law for the horseracing industry.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Campaigning Democrats Amplify Calls to Overhaul Supreme Court<\/h3>

Justin Wise and Jordan Fischer, Bloomberg Law<\/p>

On the campaign trail this year, \u201cDemocratic candidates are promising to overhaul the Supreme Court and embracing bolder positions … than the lawmakers they\u2019d replace\u2014a sign of how angry the left is about the direction of the conservative-dominated court,\u201d according to Bloomberg Law. \u201cWhile calls for change intensified as the biggest decisions landed this spring, it remains to be seen if that new enthusiasm will actually help propel legislation to add justices or institute a binding ethics code should Democrats retake Congress.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

1 year after Supreme Court limited use of nationwide injunctions, groups challenging Trump see shifting legal landscape<\/h3>

Melissa Quinn, CBS News<\/p>

Last year, in Trump v. CASA<\/em>, the court \u201ccurbed the ability of federal judges to issue sweeping orders that blocked enforcement of [President Donald] Trump\u2019s plans across the nation.\u201d The decision \u201csparked fierce criticism, including from\u201d Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who predicted that the decision would send shockwaves through the legal landscape. \u201cBut in the 12 months since the Supreme Court curbed the use of nationwide injunctions, the impact of the decision does not appear to be as devastating as critics warned it would be,\u201d according to CBS News. \u201cInstead, plaintiffs navigating a legal terrain that may be more complex in the wake of the ruling have turned to other mechanisms,\u201d such as class-action lawsuits, \u201cto secure broad relief from district courts that are evaluating the legality of Mr. Trump\u2019s policies.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

New Hampshire student athletes drop lawsuit over state\u2019s transgender sports ban<\/h3>

Ethan DeWitt, New Hampshire Bulletin<\/p>

After the Supreme Court ruled that states can exclude transgender women and girls from female sports teams, two transgender students in New Hampshire have decided to \u201cdrop[] their lawsuit against a state law barring them from girls\u2019 sports teams,\u201d according to the New Hampshire Bulletin. \u201cChris Erchull, a staff attorney at the GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders, which helped represent the plaintiffs, confirmed the decision in an interview Wednesday, saying the plaintiffs are no longer participating in New Hampshire sports.\u201d One student has moved away from the state and the other \u201chas quit the girls\u2019 soccer team voluntarily.\u201d \u201cWith protestors showing up at games, with opposing teammates not willing to shake her hand at the end of the game, and with the weight of litigation around her neck throughout the years, it was just not fun anymore,\u201d Erchull said.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

On Site<\/h2>
SCOTUSblog Events<\/span>

At SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event, National Legal Director of the ACLU Cecillia Wang speaks about arguing birthright citizenship, the term in general, and what\u2019s next on the organization\u2019s docket<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Cecillia Wang, the national legal director of the ACLU, called her April 1 argument in Trump v. Barbara the \u201cmost high-stakes and stressful task of my professional life.\u201d Her work (and eventual victory) in Barbara was one of the topics she touched on during a wide-ranging discussion on Wednesday afternoon with Zachary Shemtob, SCOTUSblog\u2019s executive editor, at SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event.<\/p><\/div>

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

Who is the Supreme Court\u2019s most \u201cideological\u201d justice? And does that question even make sense? <\/h3>

By Adam Feldman<\/p>

In his Empirical SCOTUS column, Adam Feldman analyzed each justice\u2019s judicial ideology, determining how far the members of the court are from neutral \u2013 that is, from a 50\/50 \u201cconservative-liberal voting\u201d split on both the merits and emergency dockets. He determined that \u201cAlito is the most distant justice overall from 50\/50 \u2018neutrality,\u2019 \u2026 followed closely by Sotomayor on the liberal side.\u201d<\/p><\/div>

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

Justice shopping on the emergency docket? <\/h3>

By Taraleigh Davis<\/p>

In her In the Interim column, Taraleigh Davis explored a little-discussed aspect of the court\u2019s work on its emergency docket: refiled applications, which are also called renewed applications. These filings come after the justice assigned to the circuit where a matter originated deny the applicant\u2019s request; the applicant may then refile the same application with any other justice. Davis found that \u201cJustice Sonia Sotomayor receives the most refiles of any justice, by a wide margin,\u201d and that, overall, zero refiles were granted from 2000 through 2024.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Podcasts<\/h2>
Advisory Opinions<\/span>

SCOTUS Vibe Check<\/h3>

Live from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg Center in Washington, D.C., Sarah Isgur and David French review the OT25 term with Akhil Amar, professor of law and political science at Yale University, and David Lat, author of Original Jurisdiction. The four break down the most consequential cases of the past term and what it all means for President Donald Trump\u2019s relationship with the court.<\/p>

Read more Justice shopping on the emergency docket?<\/a><\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

A Closer Look<\/div>

Justice James Wilson<\/h3><\/div>

Justice James Wilson is back in the spotlight. As SCOTUSblog contributor Anastasia Boden noted in a review for The Dispatch of journalist Jesse Wegman\u2019s new book on Wilson, he was a \u201cFounder worth remembering\u201d (at the very least, in our eyes, because he was the first and only justice to be jailed while on the bench).<\/p>

Wilson was born on a small farm near St. Andrews, Scotland, in September 1742. Wilson left for the University of St. Andrews at 15 on a scholarship, where he learned about the Scottish Enlightenment and was \u201cdeeply influenced\u201d by the idea that humans can \u201cintuit self-evident truths about the world through their common sense and experience.\u201d Although he never returned to Scotland after 1765, as one historian put it, \u201cit never left him.\u201d<\/p>

At 23, Wilson traveled to Philadelphia to start his first job teaching at the College of Philadelphia, but soon traded it for law, apprenticing under John Dickinson (another future founder). In 1774, Wilson published a pamphlet that rejected Parliament\u2019s authority over the colonies, although he believed consent of the governed was best exercised by a \u201cvirtuous\u201d (and propertied) few. In 1775, Wilson was elected as a delegate to the First Continental Congress, cast Pennsylvania\u2019s vote for independence in Congress on July 2, 1776, and apparently spoke more often than every delegate but one at the Constitutional Convention. He also helped produce the first draft of the Constitution. Wilson is credited with changing an early draft of the Constitution\u2019s preamble from \u201cThe People of the States…\u201d to \u201cWe the People.\u201d<\/p>

Passed over by President George Washington for the chief justiceship \u2013 first when the post went to John Jay in 1789 and again in March 1796 \u2013 Wilson accepted an associate seat and was confirmed by the Senate two days after his nomination in September 1789 as an inaugural member of the court. The six-justice body heard just nine cases during his eight years on the bench, making Wilson\u2019s time on it \u201cnot especially noteworthy,\u201d although while riding circuit he was \u201cone of the first justices to exercise judicial review when he refused a petition to hear a case about a veteran\u2019s pension,\u201d reasoning \u201cthat this issue was not an issue the courts had jurisdiction over.\u201d Wilson wrote 20 total pages of opinions during his court tenure and spent riding circuit than sitting on the Supreme Court.<\/p>

Wilson\u2019s defining opinion came in 1793\u2019s Chisholm v. Georgia<\/em>, a case brought by the estate of a merchant who had supplied a Georgia regiment with supplies during the Revolution and died waiting to be repaid \u2013 the question being, in effect, whether a state could be sued by a citizen of another state. In his opinion (the justices wrote in \u201cseriatim\u201d opinions at the time), Wilson reasoned that America recognized \u201ccitizens, but no subjects,\u201d and that the states had surrendered their immunity to the people\u2019s \u201ccollective sovereignty,\u201d meaning citizens could sue states other than their own. This proved short-lived: the 11th Amendment was passed within two years, effectively undoing the ruling.<\/p>

Wilson was less impressive when it came to his personal finances. He sank a fortune \u2013 by some estimates, interests in more than a million acres \u2013 into land speculation. When the Panic of 1796\u201397 struck, his debts came due \u2013 an almost $200,000 bill. He was jailed in a debtor\u2019s prison in Philadelphia, then again in Burlington, New Jersey, before fleeing south, writing to his lawyer that he had \u201cbeen hunted \u2013 I may be hunted \u2013 like a wild beast.\u201d He was bailed out by his son and promptly asked in 1797 for the southern circuit \u2013 despite it being the most trying of circuits to ride \u2013 supposedly in order to escape his creditors. Even his own son\u2019s schooling bore Wilson\u2019s financial chaos: Enrolled at the College of Philadelphia, Bird Wilson attended tuition-free while his father simultaneously became the school\u2019s largest debtor.<\/p>

While staying with fellow Justice James Iredell, Wilson died of a stroke at a tavern in North Carolina in August 1798, having come down with malaria. He was 55, and his death went unpublicized. In 1906, prompted by President Theodore Roosevelt, Wilson\u2019s remains were disinterred and reburied at Philadelphia\u2019s Christ Church \u2014 a plot that sits alongside other founders such as Benjamin Franklin, as well as just a \u201cshort walk\u201d from the grave of one of his creditors, fellow founding father Pierce Butler.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: \u201cAnd you don’t think that if \u2013 have you ever had soap in your eye, that somebody threw the soap in to cause you pain intentionally? That wouldn’t be physical injury to you?\u201d<\/p>

MR. ROTHFELD: \u201cI think that that would be bodily injury within the meaning of the statute.\u201d<\/p>

Read more Who is the Supreme Court\u2019s most \u201cideological\u201d justice? And does that question even make sense?<\/a><\/p>

JUSTICE SCALIA: \u201cHow about soap in the mouth? I’ve had that.\u201d<\/p>

(Laughter.)<\/p>

MR. ROTHFELD: \u201cI’ll leave that one alone, Justice Scalia.\u201d<\/p>

\u2014 \u00a0(2014)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, what Cecillia Wang said about arguing the birthright citizenship case during SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,22,4,47],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-364","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-advisory-opinions","category-contributor-corner","category-newsletter","category-scotusblog-events"],"yoast_head":"\nThe rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - 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=364\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, what Cecillia Wang said about arguing the birthright citizenship case during SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/e2e5fd2a3afbec1d8d98828a9bff5753.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=364#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364\"},\"wordCount\":1946,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advisory Opinions\",\"Contributor Corner\",\"Newsletter\",\"SCOTUSblog Events\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364\",\"name\":\"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=364#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=364#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs\"}]},{\"@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 rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - 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=364","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, what Cecillia Wang said about arguing the birthright citizenship case during SCOTUSblog\u2019s term-in-review event.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/e2e5fd2a3afbec1d8d98828a9bff5753.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=364#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs","datePublished":"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364"},"wordCount":1946,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Advisory Opinions","Contributor Corner","Newsletter","SCOTUSblog Events"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364","name":"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-07-10T13:10:06+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=364#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=364#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The rarity of Supreme Court do-overs"}]},{"@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\/364","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=364"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/364\/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=364"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=364"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=364"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}