(888) 557-2152
(617) 505-1088
(888) 557-2152
(617) 505-1088
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 | |
| Typographical Errors |
|
| Wording Issues |
|
| Logical Problems |
|
| Opportunities |
|
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.”
