{"id":551,"date":"2026-08-21T14:08:52","date_gmt":"2026-08-21T14:08:52","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551"},"modified":"2026-08-21T14:08:52","modified_gmt":"2026-08-21T14:08:52","slug":"six-justices-five-techniques-writing-lessons-from-the-2025-26-term","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551","title":{"rendered":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

I\u2019ve spent two decades mining Supreme Court opinions for writing techniques that can inspire advocates, too. The best examples rarely feature the snarky or witty lines made for social media. Instead, they model how to navigate the toughest problems in legal reasoning: how to make the complex come to life, how to fight line-drawing, how to narrow the issue and still win everything, how to answer a demand for more protection by counting the protections already in place, and how to concede unfavorable facts. As advocates prepare for the coming term, they can look to the current one for a working model of persuasion.<\/p>\n

Read more The tenth justice\u2019s strategy<\/a><\/p>\n

The 2025-26 term has been long on both contentious issues and stellar writing. One passage below hails from a unanimous opinion; others come from sharply divided decisions and unusual coalitions. These five techniques work as well in a motion to dismiss as they do in a Supreme Court opinion.<\/p>\n

1. Character sketch (Justice Sonia Sotomayor)<\/strong><\/p>\n

When you parse statutory schemes, contract provisions, patent claims, or a line of related cases, your challenge is to help an uninitiated reader relate to the abstract and the abstruse. Take the dense statutory scheme in . The court had to grapple with the government\u2019s argument that one statutory subsection\u2019s cross-reference to a neighboring provision would sweep in yet another subparagraph, Section 2244(b)(3)(E), and thus bar Supreme Court review.<\/p>\n

To save us from that morass, Sotomayor turns the various provisions into actors, with each assigned a role (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

Section 2244(b)(3)(A) identifies<\/strong> that the filing must be certified in the court of appeals before an individual can proceed in the district court. Section 2244(b)(3)(B) requires<\/strong> that a three-judge panel make the certification decision. Section 2244(b)(3)(C) tells<\/strong> the panel that the filing must make a prima facie showing that it satisfies the relevant gatekeeping requirements. Finally, \u00a72244(b)(3)(D) instructs<\/strong> the panel to decide whether to certify a filing within 30 days of receiving the request. These provisions all describe<\/strong> the procedures that a panel must follow in certifying a second or successive filing, and are therefore incorporated by \u00a72255(h)\u2019s cross-reference.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Subparagraph (E) \u2013 the disputed certiorari bar \u2013 is, on her telling, the odd one out: it governs the Supreme Court\u2019s review, not the panel\u2019s certification. To the government\u2019s response that all five subparagraphs travel as a package, she answers: \u201cIf Congress had intended for all five to travel together, however, it did not say so explicitly. That would have been easy to do.\u201d<\/p>\n

Practical tip: <\/strong>Before seeking refuge in canons or other abstractions, assign each element of the provision or scheme an actor and a role. Show the reader who does what before you argue about what it all means.<\/p>\n

2. Hold the line (Justice Elena Kagan)<\/strong><\/p>\n

When your opponent draws a line in the law, calling it \u201carbitrary\u201d is far less effective than inviting the reader to stand on that line and look around. In , the court held that police conducted a Fourth Amendment search when they used a \u201cgeofence warrant\u201d to access Okello Chatrie\u2019s Google location history. Kagan wrote for a bare majority of five, with Justice Neil Gorsuch concurring only in the judgment. Carpenter v. United States<\/em>, an earlier case, had held that accessing seven days of cell-site records was a search; the government argued that two hours of cell-phone location data fell outside the amendment altogether.<\/p>\n

In rejecting that argument, Kagan first calls the government\u2019s proposed line a \u201cConstitution-free zone.\u201d Then she stages the surroundings. Even short-term monitoring, Kagan argues, quoting Sotomayor’s concurrence in a separate Fourth Amendment case, can reveal visits to \u201cthe psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, [or] the by-the-hour motel.\u201d Then she subjects that line to precedents already familiar to the reader: thermal imaging was a search even though it unearthed no intimate details, and Katz v. United States<\/em>, the court\u2019s seminal wiretap case, involved just 18 minutes of recordings.<\/p>\n

Her point is not that two hours is inherently long. It is that a constitutional rule does not gain force merely because a party attaches a number to it.<\/p>\n

Practical tip: <\/strong>If another party draws a line in the sand, don\u2019t just attack the threshold. Take the reader by the hand and walk through concrete consequences until the cost of the line is impossible to ignore.<\/p>\n

3. The incredible shrinking issue (Gorsuch and Justice Amy Coney Barrett)<\/strong><\/p>\n

It\u2019s an advocacy axiom that you should make the court\u2019s task seem as small and simple as possible. Justices seeking votes face a similar challenge. In \u2013 which held that prosecuting a man under 18 U.S.C. \u00a7922(g)(3) for keeping a gun at home while regularly using marijuana was inconsistent with the Second Amendment \u2013 Gorsuch shrinks the issue point by point (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

In many respects, this case is a narrow one. We do not address<\/strong> efforts to ban addicts, or those presently intoxicated, from possessing a firearm. We do not address<\/strong> other prophylactic laws Congress might adopt after determining that users of a particular drug pose a special risk of misusing firearms. We do not address<\/strong> 18 U. S. C. \u00a7922(g)(1)\u2019s provision disarming individuals convicted of felonies (often including drug-related ones). We do not even address<\/strong> whether the government could bring a prosecution under \u00a7922(g)(3) accompanied by individualized proof that the defendant\u2019s use of marijuana (or any other drug) renders him a danger to himself or others. Or proof that a certain drug always renders its users dangerous because of its potency or for some other reason. None of those issues is before us and we do not pass on them either way.<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

All that is before us is one, if surely ambitious, theory.<\/strong> The government maintains that it may automatically strip Mr. Hemani of his Second Amendment right to possess a firearm because he uses marijuana a few times a week.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Only then does Gorsuch frame the government\u2019s position, stripped of any remnants of addiction, intoxication, or danger.<\/p>\n

\u201cLess is more\u201d is wise advice for framing issues, not just for editing prose. Barrett similarly shrinks the plaintiffs\u2019 question before the court in . There, writing for herself, the chief justice, and the three Democratic appointees, she held that the federal election-day statutes do not preempt Mississippi\u2019s law counting absentee ballots postmarked by election day but received up to five days later. Like Gorsuch, she clears away the brush before framing the issue (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

The question before us is a narrow one about timing. Plaintiffs do not challenge<\/strong> the manner in which Mississippi carries out federal elections. They do not, for example, challenge<\/strong> the general practice of absentee voting. Nor do they challenge<\/strong> the use of the Postal Service or a common carrier to transmit ballots.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Although the election-day statutes refer to a particular \u201cday\u201d for the election, plaintiffs do not contend<\/strong> that everything must occur on that day. For instance, they do not object<\/strong> to early voting or dispute that officials may count votes and certify a winner after election day.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Finally, this is not a case about the Constitution. We do not consider<\/strong> the scope of Congress\u2019s authority to regulate federal elections. The sole question before us is<\/strong> whether counting ballots postmarked by election day, but received up to five days later, violates the federal election-day statutes.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The two passages look alike, but they address different audiences. Gorsuch disclaims what the court is not deciding \u2013 reassuring wavering colleagues and future litigants that the holding is contained. Barrett disclaims what the plaintiffs are not arguing \u2013 showing a reader sizing up the stakes just how little turns on the answer. One shrinks the court\u2019s task; the other shrinks the opponent\u2019s case.<\/p>\n

Read more Justices navigate rising security threats<\/a><\/p>\n

Practical tip:<\/strong> For advocates seeking relief, \u201cDefendants do not contend,\u201d \u201cThe court need not find . . .\u201d or \u201cThe court need not address\u201d are three of the happiest sentence openers.<\/p>\n

4. Not all or nothing (Justice Brett Kavanaugh)<\/strong><\/p>\n

In , the court held \u2013 overruling its 2001 decision in \u2013 that federal limits on what a political party may spend in coordination with its own candidates violate the First Amendment. The statute\u2019s court-appointed defender, Roman Martinez, joined by the Democratic Party committees that intervened, argued that the limits were necessary to stop donors from routing money around caps on direct contributions. Kavanaugh answers by enumerating what already stands in the way (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

The base limits on contributions to candidates serve<\/strong> as an initial prophylaxis. . . . The earmarking rules constitute<\/strong> a second prophylaxis. The disclosure requirements supply<\/strong> a third prophylaxis. So prophylaxis upon prophylaxis upon prophylaxis already serve<\/strong> to prevent quid pro quo<\/em> corruption or its appearance.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The political-party coordinated-expenditure limits at issue here would operate as a fourth line of defense<\/strong>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Such a list is far more compelling than an adjective like \u201cunnecessary\u201d or \u201csuperfluous.\u201d<\/p>\n

Practical tip: <\/strong>When your opponent asks for more than you believe is necessary, switch the frame from a lack of right to a lack of need \u2013 then count off, one by one, the safeguards already there.<\/p>\n

5. Concede for the win (Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson)<\/strong><\/p>\n

Most disputes have unfavorable facts on both sides. But when your opponent weaves several of your worst facts into a single taut passage, the reader may be quick to infer a pattern that hurts your cause.<\/p>\n

In , Amarin used that strategy to allege induced patent infringement. Hikma\u2019s generic drug carried a \u201cskinny label\u201d carving out a patented use, but Amarin pointed to other features of the label, along with Hikma\u2019s press releases and website, as evidence that Hikma was nevertheless encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug for that use.<\/p>\n

Writing for a unanimous court, Jackson first identifies the inference that actually matters:<\/p>\n

The central question is whether Amarin plausibly alleged that Hikma actively encouraged infringing uses, not merely whether doctors could plausibly read the alleged statements as instructions to infringe.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That distinction lets her dismantle the narrative fact by fact. Consider one of Amarin\u2019s supposedly incriminating details (emphasis added):<\/p>\n

It is true, as Amarin complains, that<\/strong> Hikma\u2019s label omitted the CV Limitation of Use and retained information about a clinical study involving patients taking statins, just as Amarin\u2019s label did. But that is because<\/strong>, by statute, Hikma\u2019s label must be identical to Amarin\u2019s except for the carved-out use, barring specified circumstances not applicable here.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Amarin also finds fault<\/strong> in Hikma\u2019s statements describing its product as \u201c\u2018generic Vascepa\u2019\u201d or the \u201c\u2018generic equivalent\u2019 of Vascepa\u201d in the prelaunch press releases. But as we have explained<\/strong>, it is \u201cnormal industry practice\u201d to \u201ctruthfully describe\u201d a generic drug as \u201c\u2018equivalent\u2019\u201d to the brand-name comparator.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice what Jackson does not do. She does not deny the fact. And she does not simply insist that the overall allegations are \u201cinsufficient.\u201d She separates what happened from what Amarin believes it means.<\/p>\n

The technique matters because fact-laden arguments often try to force the reader into a single inference. \u201cThe Defendant did X\u201d morphs into \u201cThe Defendant did X because it intended Y.\u201d Jackson\u2019s technique urges the reader to pause between those steps.<\/p>\n

Practical tip:<\/strong> When the other side piles on adverse facts, break them into pieces and draw a sharp line between what the fact describes and what it means or doesn\u2019t mean.<\/p>\n

Try these at home<\/strong><\/p>\n

None of these techniques is a rhetorical flourish. Each is an act of structure or framing: cast each provision as an actor, pressure-test the line, shrink the issue, count the safeguards, separate the fact from the inference. These scaffolds reduce the reader\u2019s cognitive load \u2013 and lower the cost of ruling for your side.<\/p>\n

Read more Trump asks Supreme Court to hear his defamation case against CNN<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I\u2019ve spent two decades mining Supreme Court opinions for writing techniques that can inspire advocates, too. The best examples rarely feature the snarky or witty lines made for social media. Instead, they model how to navigate the toughest problems in legal reasoning: how to make the complex come to life, how to fight line-drawing, how […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":390,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,18],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-551","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-commentary","category-scotus-outside-opinions"],"yoast_head":"\nSix justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - 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=551\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"I\u2019ve spent two decades mining Supreme Court opinions for writing techniques that can inspire advocates, too. The best examples rarely feature the snarky or witty lines made for social media. Instead, they model how to navigate the toughest problems in legal reasoning: how to make the complex come to life, how to fight line-drawing, how […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-21T14:08:52+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=551#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-21T14:08:52+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551\"},\"wordCount\":1976,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Commentary\",\"SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551\",\"name\":\"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-21T14:08:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg\",\"width\":1200,\"height\":627},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=551#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term\"}]},{\"@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":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - 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=551","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - American Service Review","og_description":"I\u2019ve spent two decades mining Supreme Court opinions for writing techniques that can inspire advocates, too. The best examples rarely feature the snarky or witty lines made for social media. Instead, they model how to navigate the toughest problems in legal reasoning: how to make the complex come to life, how to fight line-drawing, how […]","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-08-21T14:08:52+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=551#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term","datePublished":"2026-08-21T14:08:52+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551"},"wordCount":1976,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg","articleSection":["Commentary","SCOTUS OUTSIDE OPINIONS"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551","name":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg","datePublished":"2026-08-21T14:08:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/71f8d28bfed7f88c7a0a99b2d7189a40.jpg","width":1200,"height":627},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=551#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Six justices, five techniques: writing lessons from the 2025-26 term"}]},{"@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\/551","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=551"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/551\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/390"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=551"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=551"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=551"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}