{"id":596,"date":"2026-09-02T13:10:27","date_gmt":"2026-09-02T13:10:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596"},"modified":"2026-09-02T13:10:27","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T13:10:27","slug":"house-to-vote-on-number-of-justices","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596","title":{"rendered":"House to vote on number of justices"},"content":{"rendered":"

We\u2019re now only two weeks away from The SCOTUSblog Summit: 2026 Term Preview, which will take place on Wednesday, Sept. 16, in Washington, D.C. If you\u2019re interested in attending, please fill out this registration request.<\/p>

Read more Enhance the Supreme Court minority\u2019s procedural powers<\/a><\/p>

At the Court<\/h2>

Two Republican groups have asked the court on its interim docket to block a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit preventing political parties and joint fundraising committees from paying preferential broadcast rates for political ads. The court has asked the four Democrats who challenged the groups\u2019 access to more favorable rates to respond to the request by noon EDT on Thursday.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

In another interim docket dispute, a Michigan group has urged the court to require Michigan election officials to put on the November ballot its proposal for requiring proof of citizenship to vote in the state. Michigan officials\u2019 response to that request is due by noon EDT today.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

This Friday at 9:30 a.m. EDT, the court will release its third and final summer order list. (We discussed what these lists typically address in our July 13 newsletter.)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Morning Reads<\/h2>

Johnson announces vote on amendment to cap SCOTUS at 9 justices<\/h3>

Ben Whedon, Just the News<\/p>

On Tuesday, House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican from Louisiana, told reporters \u201cthat the House would vote on a constitutional amendment to cap the number of justices on the Supreme Court at nine.\u201d \u201cJohnson criticized the Democratic Socialists of America over their calls to pack the Supreme Court and insisted the chamber would force Democrats to go on the record on the issue\u201d in a Wednesday vote. \u201cMy background\u2019s in constitutional law and litigation. We know that the nine justices of the Supreme Court has been the model that has served this country for many, many years, and it does not need to change. If we go down the road of packing the Supreme Court, it turns into a political palooza, and it would not serve the country,\u201d Johnson said. A proposed constitutional amendment needs two-thirds support in the House and Senate before it goes to states to be ratified.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

How the Supreme Court Locks Away Its Own History<\/h3>

Jodi Kantor, The New York Times<\/svg><\/span><\/p>

When Justice Antonin Scalia died suddenly in February 2016, the remaining justices realized he \u201chad left no plans for his working papers.\u201d \u201cFor a Supreme Court justice, this was the equivalent of dying without a will.\u201d In response, the justices \u201centered into private negotiations to try to head off any such situation in the future.\u201d Citing \u201cseveral people with knowledge of the process,\u201d The New York Times reported that \u201cChief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. led the surviving justices in discussions about imposing a more uniform seal for their own papers.\u201d The Times\u2019 anonymous sources \u201crecalled that a consensus was reached, but had differing memories of its terms and how solid or lasting it was.\u201d The fate of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg\u2019s Supreme Court papers may hint at what was decided: After her death in 2020, her \u201cpapers went, at her direction, to the Library of Congress on the condition that no case file would be opened until every justice involved in the matter had died, a restriction that could lock away many documents for decades.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Nearly 25 years after the attacks, Supreme Court asked to bring closure to 9\/11 case<\/h3>

Kelsey Reichmann, Courthouse News Service<\/p>

This fall, after Americans mark the 25th anniversary of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the Supreme Court will consider whether to \u201cweigh in on the disposal of controversial plea agreements\u201d offered to two men allegedly involved in planning 9\/11, according to Courthouse News Service. \u201cKhalid Shaikh Mohammad, the man accused of plotting the attacks, and one of his coconspirators, Mustafa al-Hawsawi,\u201d have asked the justices to consider their effort to reinstate plea agreements that would take the death penalty off the table once they admit guilt. The \u201cagreements were viewed by victims, the defendants and prosecutors as a way to bring closure to the case after it was derailed by the government\u2019s now-infamous torture program. But former Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin tried to withdraw the agreements. Two military courts found the withdrawal unlawful, but the D.C. Circuit overturned the decisions.\u201d Courthouse News Service noted that \u201c[s]everal Sept. 11 victim groups filed an in support of Mohammad and al-Hawsawi\u2019s appeal. While imperfect, the victims argued the plea agreements were a crucial step in holding the men responsible for their involvement in the attacks. They argued the D.C. Circuit\u2019s ruling deprived them of closure.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div>

High Court\u2019s Ballroom Order Imperils Other Trump Building Cases<\/h3>

Suzanne Monyak, Bloomberg Law<\/p>

On Monday, the Supreme Court granted the Trump administration\u2019s request for it to clear the way for construction to continue on the new White House ballroom. The 5-4 interim docket , in which the majority said \u201cthat the historic preservationist nonprofit that sued likely doesn\u2019t have legal grounds, or standing, to contest the project,\u201d could spell doom for \u201clegal challenges to President Donald Trump\u2019s other efforts to leave his mark on Washington\u2019s historic landmarks,\u201d including the Kennedy Center and Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which involve the same or similar historic preservationist groups. By narrowing the criteria for standing, the court left \u201ca smaller group of potential litigants to bring these cases,\u201d which may include \u201cthose who own property near a historic landmark or who have more direct ties to the landmark in dispute,\u201d legal experts told Bloomberg Law. The decision also \u201csen[t] a signal to Americans this court is not going to make it easy for them to stand up for historic properties that are owned by all Americans,\u201d said Greg Werkheiser, an attorney and co-founder of Cultural Heritage Partners.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

Minnesota Supreme Court rejects Mike Lindell\u2019s bid to recount GOP gubernatorial primary<\/h3>

Kyla Guilfoil, NBC News<\/p>

Last month, MyPillow founder Mike Lindell, a prominent supporter of President Donald Trump, lost \u201cthe GOP primary for governor of Minnesota.\u201d But Lindell has so far refused to accept that result and may bring his quest for a recount all the way to the Supreme Court. He told NBC News that he planned to appeal to the justices after \u201c[t]he Minnesota Supreme Court on Saturday rejected Lindell\u2019s bid for a full recount of his Aug. 11 loss to state House Speaker Lisa Demuth.\u201d \u201cChief Justice Natalie E. Hudson wrote in a six-page ruling that the Minnesota Secretary of State\u2019s Office and its State Canvassing Board provided a recount plan that follows the law and are \u2018not committing any wrongful act, omission, or error,\u2019\u201d contrary to what Lindell had claimed in lawsuit seeking a full recount.<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

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

Solicitor General Sauer\u2019s SCOTUS tightrope<\/h3>

By Amy Howe<\/p>

Three weeks after D. John Sauer was confirmed as solicitor general, law professor and podcast co-host William Baude speculated that Sauer might be \u201ceither fired or disbarred by the time his term is up.\u201d More than 16 months later, Sauer is still on the job. Although the briefs that he has filed and the arguments that he has made before the justices have at times seemed unorthodox \u2013 appearing to echo language used by Trump himself \u2013 he has largely appeared to pull off a tricky balancing act.<\/p><\/div>

\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>
SCOTUS Outside Opinions<\/span>

Enhance the Supreme Court minority\u2019s procedural powers<\/h3>

By Josh Blackman<\/p>

For his series on what the Supreme Court can do better, Josh Blackman wrote about why he believes the court should adopt Rules of Three, under which a minority of three justices could force certain procedural matters, including granting a petition for review and dismissing a case as improvidently granted.<\/p>

Read more Solicitor General Sauer\u2019s SCOTUS tightrope<\/a><\/p><\/div>

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

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

Has the First Amendment Ever Been More Relevant?<\/h3>

Sarah Isgur and David French pick through a trail mix of topics in this episode. The two discuss bracelet-wearing parents at a soccer game, student visas being revoked over bad speech, and classified information being printed. But they kick it off with a big \u201cSarah got it wrong.\u201d<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>

Ask Amy<\/h3><\/div>

Q: In a recent case, I saw that two states had filed a \u201cbill of complaint\u201d before the Supreme Court. What\u2019s that all about?<\/strong><\/p>

A: Great question. First some background: Last week Iowa and Montana came to the Supreme Court, asking the justices to intervene in the dispute over the $110 billion merger between Paramount Skydance and Warner Brothers. But unlike most cases at the Supreme Court, the two states are not seeking review of a lower-court decision. Instead, Iowa and Montana have filed what is known as an \u201coriginal action\u201d: they want the Supreme Court to weigh in on the legality of the merger in the first instance, and to block an antitrust enforcement action brought by a group of 12 Democratic-led states in a federal trial court in California from going forward.<\/p>

The dispute is called an \u201coriginal action\u201d because the Constitution gives the Supreme Court \u201coriginal Jurisdiction\u201d over cases involving states; Congress later gave the Supreme Court \u201coriginal and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.\u201d<\/p>

Under , the procedures for an original action are similar \u2013 but not identical \u2013 to a petition for review of a lower-court decision. A plaintiff seeking to file an original action files a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint, a bill of complaint (which resembles a complaint that would be filed in a trial court), and (if desired) a brief to support its motion. The defendant then files a brief in opposition 60 days later, after which the plaintiff can (but is not required) to file a reply.<\/p>

After the court has considered the filings in an original action, its options are (once again) similar but not identical to those for a petition for review. It \u201cmay grant or deny the motion, set it for oral argument, direct that additional documents be filed, or require that other proceedings be conducted.\u201d In particular, the Supreme Court often appoints a \u201cspecial master\u201d (who is usually an experienced attorney or a retired judge) to deal with complicated cases. The special master may gather evidence, review additional briefing from the litigants, and make a recommendation to the justices in a written report.<\/p>

One major difference between original actions and cases on the court\u2019s \u201cregular\u201d docket is that original actions can last for years, if not decades. For example, in 2013, Texas filed a motion for leave to file a bill of complaint in a water dispute with New Mexico and Colorado. The court appointed a special master in 2014 and heard oral arguments on the objections to the special master\u2019s first interim report in 2018. It appointed a new special master later that year; that special master issued two more interim reports in 2019 and 2023. The court heard oral arguments on the objections to the special master\u2019s third interim report in 2024 and appointed a third special master later that year. In March of this year, the third special master issued an interim report that included a proposed final decree, which the court entered \u2013 closing out the case \u2013 on May 26.<\/p><\/div><\/div>

SCOTUS Quote<\/h2>

JUSTICE BREYER: \u201c\u2026 And I just heard you say that you want, for example, were it \u2013 you want the Patriots to sell T-shirts in competition with the Saints, or whoever. The Red Sox. All right. You see the point? The Red Sox \u2013 I know baseball better. You want the Red Sox to compete in selling T-shirts with the Yankees; is that right?\u201d<\/p>

MR. NAGER: \u201cThe ability to compete. Yes.\u201d<\/p>

JUSTICE BREYER: \u201cYes. Okay. I don’t know a Red Sox fan who would take a Yankees sweatshirt if you gave it away.\u201d<\/p>

Read more New election disputes on the interim docket<\/a><\/p>

\u2014 American Needle Inc. v. National Football League<\/em> (2010)<\/p><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Plus, don\u2019t forget to register your interest in attending the upcoming SCOTUSblog Summit.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":17,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[7,5,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-596","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-advisory-opinions","category-from-the-scotusblog-team","category-newsletter"],"yoast_head":"\nHouse to vote on number of justices - 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=596\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"House to vote on number of justices - American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Plus, don\u2019t forget to register your interest in attending the upcoming SCOTUSblog Summit.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"American Service Review\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e85631f98a2725d68442ad59406a66e1.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=596#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"headline\":\"House to vote on number of justices\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596\"},\"wordCount\":1969,\"commentCount\":0,\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"Advisory Opinions\",\"From the SCOTUSblog Team\",\"Newsletter\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596\",\"name\":\"House to vote on number of justices - American Service Review\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/?p=596#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=596#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/americanservicereview.com\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"House to vote on number of justices\"}]},{\"@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":"House to vote on number of justices - 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=596","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"House to vote on number of justices - American Service Review","og_description":"Plus, don\u2019t forget to register your interest in attending the upcoming SCOTUSblog Summit.","og_url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596","og_site_name":"American Service Review","article_published_time":"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2000,"height":1333,"url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/09\/e85631f98a2725d68442ad59406a66e1.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=596#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"headline":"House to vote on number of justices","datePublished":"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596"},"wordCount":1969,"commentCount":0,"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","articleSection":["Advisory Opinions","From the SCOTUSblog Team","Newsletter"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596","url":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596","name":"House to vote on number of justices - American Service Review","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/803a164f9e7307fb35e1310eb4a0b4fe.jpg","datePublished":"2026-09-02T13:10:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/#\/schema\/person\/220bfdac1627513926924476de32dedb"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/?p=596#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=596#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"House to vote on number of justices"}]},{"@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\/596","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=596"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/596\/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=596"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=596"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/americanservicereview.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=596"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}