{"id":471,"date":"2026-08-03T13:46:17","date_gmt":"2026-08-03T13:46:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471"},"modified":"2026-08-03T13:46:17","modified_gmt":"2026-08-03T13:46:17","slug":"a-court-trapped-in-amber","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471","title":{"rendered":"A court trapped in amber"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

In United States v. Rahimi<\/em>, the Supreme Court denied that the Second Amendment is \u201ca law trapped in amber.\u201d That metaphor has now exploded onto constitutional law, appearing in six Supreme Court cases this term and hundreds of lower court opinions. Somehow, an expression that traces back to 1970s liberals has become au courant<\/em> at the most conservative Supreme Court in generations. What\u2019s more, the metaphor is a negative one. Rather than tell us what the law is, the court\u2019s viral expression tells us what it isn\u2019t. But what, then, is<\/em> the law? The intuitive answer: alive. In short, the court has indirectly embraced a form of living constitutionalism.<\/p>\n

Read more Trump administration targets birth tourism<\/a><\/p>\n

Early history<\/strong><\/p>\n

The idea that a source of law is not \u201ctrapped\u201d or \u201cfrozen\u201d in amber dates back at least to the 1960s, but the most salient early instance occurred in the 1974 case Richardson v. Ramirez<\/em>. The Supreme Court, per then-Justice Rehnquist, upheld the constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement laws through an analysis often viewed as originalist. In brief, the court held that felony disenfranchisement could not in itself violate the equal protection clause because that practice not only existed at the time of the clause\u2019s adoption but also was explicitly contemplated in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment.<\/p>\n

In dissent, Justice Thurgood Marshall, joined by Justice William Brennan, wrote: \u201cBut \u2018constitutional concepts of equal protection are not immutably frozen like insects trapped in Devonian amber.\u2019” The quotation there is from Dillenburg v. Kramer<\/em>, an influential 1972 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit ruling by Judge Shirley Hufstedler. In deeming the issue of felony disenfranchisement serious enough to convene a three-judge court, Hufstedler had argued that the equal protection clause encoded a dynamic principle whose implications could change over time, particularly with respect to voting rights. All three of these jurists \u2013 Marshall, Brennan, and Hufstedler \u2013 were leading liberals of the era.<\/p>\n

From then on, the amber metaphor made regular appearances within the literature on felony disenfranchisement, which was where I first encountered it. The metaphor also appeared occasionally in some other legal contexts. For instance, law professor Akhil Amar invoked amber as a way of criticizing some of Justice Antonin Scalia\u2019s overly stringent forms of Fourth Amendment originalism. Amar instead favored an approach that would allow for greater flexibility and afford more power to juries.<\/p>\n

Eventually, in 2021, a footnote in a separate opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch quoted Professor Stephen Sachs\u2019 use of the metaphor. As Gorsuch related, Sachs has the view that the rules of personal jurisdiction are general law and so adjustable by Congress, rather than \u201cfixed in constitutional amber.\u201d Like Amar, Sachs is an originalist scholar, and he used an amber metaphor to describe a source of law that vested decisional authority at least partly in non-judicial actors who could update for new events.<\/p>\n

Apart from some scattered exceptions, the metaphor was essentially absent from judicial opinions, and it went decades without appearing in the Supreme Court. The amber metaphor, we might say, had itself become frozen in amber.<\/p>\n

Amber escaping<\/strong><\/p>\n

In United States v. Rahimi<\/em>, in which the court uphold a bar on guns for those with domestic-violence restraining orders, the Supreme Court loosened its Second Amendment analysis, embracing \u201cprinciples\u201d and \u201ccommon sense\u201d rather than the strict historical analysis that had apparently guided recent originalist rulings. To capture its new approach, the court, per Chief Justice John Roberts, used a vivid metaphor: \u201c[S]ome courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber.\u201d The chief justice cited nothing for that statement, raising the question of whether he knew of the metaphor\u2019s history.<\/p>\n

So far as I am aware, Rahimi<\/em> was the first time that the amber metaphor appeared in a Supreme Court majority opinion. And not only did it appear, but it featured in a critical passage describing the court\u2019s pivot away from stringent originalism.<\/p>\n

Other justices immediately seized on this expression. In Rahimi <\/em>itself, Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Neil Gorsuch, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and Amy Coney Barrett all penned concurrences that quoted the majority\u2019s amber metaphor. Following the majority, three of those justices (Sotomayor, Jackson, and Barrett) cast law trapped in amber as self-evidently bad. Gorsuch, by contrast, wrote of \u201cthe people\u2019s directions in the Constitution\u2014directions that are \u2018trapped in amber.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

The metaphor\u2019s importance was not lost on the lower courts. Before Rahimi<\/em>, lower court decisions on whether the law was \u201ctrapped\u201d or \u201cfrozen\u201d in \u201camber\u201d numbered in the dozens. Now, just a few years after Rahimi<\/em>, they number in the hundreds. Legal scholars have followed suit, with \u201camber\u201d references and quotations reviews nearly as fast as the flies of summer. The amber metaphor then reappeared in Trump v. CASA<\/em> (concerning whether district courts could issue nationwide injunctions), with both the majority and the dissenters agreeing that equity is not trapped in amber.<\/p>\n

The amber term<\/strong><\/p>\n

Something new happened this term. By my count, the amber metaphor recently appeared in six different Supreme Court cases, including two majority opinions. Every instance cited Rahimi<\/em> or a case quoting Rahimi<\/em>.<\/p>\n

The most important example came in the Federal Reserve case, Trump v. Cook<\/em>: \u201cWe see no reason \u2026 why our central bank ought to be\u00a0trapped in amber\u00a0any more than any other aspect of our constitutional scheme.\u201d Not only did this metaphor-based argument attempt to explain why the unitary executive theory did not apply to the Federal Reserve, but it also suggested that the amber metaphor is applicable to \u201cany other aspect\u201d of constitutional law.<\/p>\n

Another example came earlier in the term and, interestingly, involved a statute. Barrett wrote for the court in Watson v. Republican National Committee<\/em>, the mail-in ballot case: \u201cBut historical practice, detached from statutory text, is not controlling. Statutes do not \u2018tra[p] in amber\u2019 every contemporary practice on the same subject matter.\u201d So the amber metaphors can help decide statutory cases, too.<\/p>\n

Read more The court and the \u201copinions of mankind\u201d<\/a><\/p>\n

A third important example arose in Trump v. Barbara<\/em>, the birthright citizenship case. Justice Brett Kavanaugh\u2019s partial concurrence and partial dissent concluded that the court could recognize new exceptions to the principle of birthright citizenship. As he wrote: \u201cThis Court\u2019s constitutional precedents do not treat the 1791 or 1868 exceptions as a closed set \u2018trapped in amber.\u2019\u201d Of all the recent examples, this one may come closest to Justice Marshall\u2019s early use of the metaphor in Richardson<\/em>. In both instances, a practice that had once been fixed in amber-like law might be so no longer.<\/p>\n

Three dissenting opinions this term also discussed amber. In the Federal Trade Commission removal case Trump v. Slaughter<\/em>, Justice Sonia Sotomayor\u2019s dissent asked a sensible question: \u201cWhen, exactly is our law \u2018\u201ctrapped in amber,\u201d\u2019 and when is it not?\u201d (Sotomayor was quoting Cook<\/em>, which in turn quoted Rahimi<\/em>.) In Cisco Systems v. Doe<\/em>, where the court held that the Alien Tort Statute did not create new rights of action to remedy violations of international law, Sotomayor cited Rahimi<\/em> but implicitly invoked Watson<\/em>\u2019s use of amber in a statutory case, writing: \u201cThere also is no indication that Congress intended to \u2018tra[p]\u2019\u00a0the ATS \u2018in amber.\u2019\u201d Finally, Jackson in Wolford v. Lopez<\/em> used the metaphor to impugn the court\u2019s approach in a Second Amendment case as resulting \u201cin a \u2018law trapped in amber.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

If the law is not trapped in amber, the Supreme Court seems to be.<\/p>\n

Metaphorical meanings<\/strong><\/p>\n

The amber metaphor is powerful not just because it is vivid, but also because of its ambiguity. Of course, any metaphor invites interpretation. But the amber metaphor is extra indeterminate because the court deploys it negatively, yielding an indirect argument. The court tells us what the law is not<\/em>, without quite telling us what it is.<\/p>\n

A comparison might be drawn with the rhetorical trope of litotes or understatement. Rather than assert that \u201cshe\u2019s the best in the class,\u201d someone might say, \u201cShe\u2019s no slouch.\u201d Understatement is effective in part because it is indirect, inviting the listener to join in a shared understanding without provoking quibbles about details.<\/p>\n

To many justices and readers, a \u201claw trapped in amber\u201d is clearly bad. But why? Amber is a beautiful substance and widely prized. To be \u201ctrapped,\u201d however, is not good. And to be trapped \u201cin amber\u201d connotes a more specific image: an insect or other small creature encased, long dead \u2013 and forever observed.<\/p>\n

The chief justice\u2019s use of the metaphor in Rahimi<\/em> connotes this image subtly, without spelling it out. Perhaps he could do so because, thanks to movies like Jurassic Park, many of us readily envision what Judge Hufstedler specified in the 1970s \u2013 namely, \u201cinsects\u201d that have been \u201cfrozen\u201d and \u201ctrapped in Devonian amber.\u201d<\/p>\n

Because the amber metaphor operates indirectly, it invites the reader to imagine its antithesis. Presumably a law that is not \u201ctrapped in amber\u201d is free and at large. It may be capable of moving, growing, reproducing, learning \u2013 even stinging. It is not just observed and beautiful but doing<\/em> things. It is alive.<\/p>\n

The amber metaphor thus appears to be an understated way of describing a \u201cliving\u201d law \u2013 or, more familiarly, a \u201cliving Constitution.\u201d That interpretation comports with the metaphor\u2019s 1970s association with liberal jurists, but it is also jarring when associated with the most conservative Supreme Court in many decades. Scalia, for instance, was fond of saying that the Constitution is \u201cdead, dead, dead.\u201d<\/p>\n

Perhaps the court is embracing the amber metaphor because it conveys the same meaning as the idea of a living Constitution without clearly connoting liberalism. It is a discreet way for right-leaning jurists to embrace ideas they and their allies have long opposed. I have argued that conservatives engaged in legal realignment often borrow ideas from liberals of prior generations. The chief\u2019s use of a metaphor once deployed by Justice Marshall can likewise be viewed as a form of intergenerational borrowing.<\/p>\n

Yet understatement matters, and the amber metaphor is not quite the same as a full-throated endorsement of living constitutionalism. Because it is ambiguous and indirect, it leaves the court room to differentiate itself from the liberals of the past. Perhaps the court really means that while the law is not entirely<\/em> \u201ctrapped in amber,\u201d parts of it might be. The meaning or principle of the law could be fixed in legal amber, whereas its applications are not. But because the metaphor does not in itself tell us what, if anything, is fixed, it remains highly interpretable.<\/p>\n

Ultimately, the amber metaphor is more evocative than illuminating. If it meant only to disclaim the view that law is totally dormant, then it would provoke little controversy. But to the extent the metaphor suggests a buzzing insect, it makes the \u201cliving tree\u201d of Canadian jurisprudence seem placid by comparison. By inviting interpretation, the amber metaphor effectively substitutes for legal analysis. In that respect, it resembles the court\u2019s recent invocations of \u201ccommon sense.\u201d<\/p>\n

The amber metaphor may turn out to be a mere placeholder. It helps jurists reach agreement while slightly dazzling their readers \u2013 all without taking any specific stand. Once the court figures out more directly and precisely what it means to say, it may find the metaphor less useful. Only then would the justices themselves break free, leaving their metaphorical amber behind.<\/p>\n

Read more The court\u2019s big gun cases \u2013 and what\u2019s next<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court denied that the Second Amendment is \u201ca law trapped in amber.\u201d That metaphor has now exploded onto constitutional law, appearing in six Supreme Court cases this term and hundreds of lower court opinions. Somehow, an expression that traces back to 1970s liberals has become au courant at […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":110,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,26],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-471","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-controlling-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nA court trapped in amber - 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=471\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"A court trapped in amber - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court denied that the Second Amendment is \u201ca law trapped in amber.\u201d That metaphor has now exploded onto constitutional law, appearing in six Supreme Court cases this term and hundreds of lower court opinions. Somehow, an expression that traces back to 1970s liberals has become au courant at […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-03T13:46:17+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=471#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"A court trapped in amber\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T13:46:17+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471\"},\"wordCount\":1917,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\",\"Controlling Opinions\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471\",\"name\":\"A court trapped in amber - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-03T13:46:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=471#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"A court trapped in amber\"}]},{\"@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":"A court trapped in amber - 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=471","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"A court trapped in amber - American Service Review","og_description":"In United States v. Rahimi, the Supreme Court denied that the Second Amendment is \u201ca law trapped in amber.\u201d That metaphor has now exploded onto constitutional law, appearing in six Supreme Court cases this term and hundreds of lower court opinions. Somehow, an expression that traces back to 1970s liberals has become au courant at […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-03T13:46:17+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=471#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"A court trapped in amber","datePublished":"2026-08-03T13:46:17+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471"},"wordCount":1917,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary","Controlling Opinions"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471","name":"A court trapped in amber - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-03T13:46:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/bc17ba28115d2ce93cd760bf6aa6c9cf.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=471#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"A court trapped in amber"}]},{"@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\/471","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=471"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/471\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/110"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=471"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=471"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=471"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}