While many people passionately debate the merits and faults of the Court’s recent decision in ideological terms, few understand the issues from a constitutional perspective. Truthfully, not many people are eager to sit down and read a 187-page Supreme Court decision littered with baroque legal terms and impenetrable sentences. Federal law clerk Michael Serota’s editorial “Why We Need Supreme Court Cliff Notes,” which appears in today’s Washington Post, argues that the Supreme Court should make their opinions more accessible to the public by providing abridged versions written in straightforward vernacular. In the article, Michael argues that providing more readable decisions makes the Court more accessible and relevant to the general public, and fosters greater interest among people in the Court.
Michael Serota is currently a law clerk form the United States District Court in the Southern District of Florida. He earned his juris doctor degree from the University of California at Berkeley Law School. His father, WSH Founding Member Joseph H. Serota, is an experienced trial and appellate attorney and a member of our Litigation Division and Appellate Practice Group. You can read a copy of Michael’s editorial here.
Author(s): Brooke P. Dolara
