When drafting complex, lengthy Supreme Court documents under intense time pressure, in a new jurisdiction with its own set of complex rules, it is inevitable, even for the most experienced attorneys, to draft briefs with errors. Even at large law firms, with armies of Associates to comb through text, niggling and potentially embarrassing errors still leak through. The Supreme Court Press editor review is like an angel on your shoulder, providing a fresh set of eyes. A Petition for Writ of Certiorari, and Amicus Brief, or a Merits Brief, your documents will live forever within the Supreme Court archives and be searched upon by future generations of attorneys. When documents take on this level of importance, and outsiders proofread can make a significant difference.
The Supreme Court Press Editor Review has been described by clients as joyous, transformative, decisive, incisive, and the best value they have ever received from a legal service. Our clients have credited the Editor Review as the make or break service that permitted their petition to be granted certiorari, and ultimately a victory at the merits stage. For first-time clients, the editor review is complementary. As long as you submit your Supreme Court brief by 9 AM EST at least three business days before your target print date, the editor review will conduct the complete text review of your document and report to you on the following:
|The Editor Review Seeks Out|
Courts, too, are bound by First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then draw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted; moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious 1st Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inivitable, perverted, and serious risks of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would itself would be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech”.
Courts, too, are bound by the First Amendment. We must decline to draw, and then redraw, constitutional lines based on the particular media or technology used to disseminate political speech from a particular speaker. It must be noted, moreover, that this undertaking would require substantial litigation over an extended time, all to interpret a law that beyond doubt discloses serious First Amendment flaws. The interpretive process itself would create an inevitable, pervasive, and serious risk of chilling protected speech pending the drawing of fine distinctions that, in the end, would themselves would be questionable. First Amendment standards, however, “must give the benefit of any doubt to protecting rather than stifling speech.”
The Supreme Court Press was a God send via Google. I jumped on the Internet and there you were. I knew nothing about printing and submitting a Supreme Court brief. The editor took my hand and lovingly guided me through the dense, legal forest. He answered all of my novice questions, gave positive feedback and friendly encouragement. All of us, in my case, could not be more happy to have run into the Supreme Court Press!Wayne Anderson,
Our experience with Supreme Court Press has been Excellent. Someone has always been available for even the most the trivial questions. we received practical tips and great advice that i believe assisted in ourefforts to get certiorari. Supreme Court Press never presented the company as merely a printer. Supreme Court Press has provides us with a place to go for all of our needs relating to this petiton.JOHN MILLER CARROLL,
Thank you. i'd also like to add, the Supreme Court Press, in my humble opinion, is a first rate operation. Our experience with them is that they are very knowledgeable about appellate court rules and extraordinarily professional.ALEXANDRA SISKOPOLOUS,
I felt the editor process was amazing and i wish i could hire Supreme CourtPress for all of my briefs . . . with regard to the initial brief i feli that the help i received was way more than i expected. i expected formatting issues to arise but as far as the editing for content, and the suggestions that were made, i found them all to be extremely insightful and very helpful.LAUREN SANDY,
The Supreme Court Press was more to us than just a printer. You helpedus step back from our passion-driven sense of purpose to right this wrong. Between edits and suggestions, we were able to step back andSupreme Court Press was like a silent senior partner that raised our level of performance.PETER Q.JOHN,
We were impressed and totally satisfied with working with the supreme court press. It was liberating not to worry about the dozens of intricate formatting and procedural rules that must be followed before the supreme court will accept a filing. We could focus on developing persuasive arguments and explaining why a writ of certiorari should be granted.ANN SHORT,