Adam Liptak
Adam Liptak is a Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times. He covers the Supreme Court and writes Sidebar, a column on legal developments, for The New York Times. His focus is to make the Supreme Court accessible to readers by distilling and translating complex legal materials into something like accessible prose while remaining alert to the political context and practical consequences of the court's work. He also draws on all of the tools of journalism to cover the court vigorously as a powerful government institution. Adam has taught courses on the Supreme Court and the First Amendment at several law schools, including at the University of Chicago, New York University and Yale. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Contact: Email: liptaka@nytimes.com | Anonymous tips: nytimes.com/tips Latest
Biography:
https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak
80%
The Daily's Verdict
This author has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on the author's reporting.
Bias
89%
Examples:
- However, there may be some instances where the author's personal views or preferences are not fully disclosed or acknowledged. For example, in the article about Peter Navarro, the author refers to him as a 'former adviser to President Trump' and implies that he was involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election without explicitly stating this as a fact.
- The author appears to have a strong focus on the legal aspects of the cases and decisions covered, often highlighting the implications for First Amendment rights and constitutional law. There is also a consistent emphasis on fairness and presenting multiple perspectives.
Conflicts of Interest
75%
Examples:
- However, there may be instances where potential conflicts of interest are not fully explored or acknowledged.
- The author occasionally discusses potential conflicts of interest related to the cases and decisions covered. For example, in the article about Peter Navarro, the author notes that he is the first former White House official to be jailed for refusing to testify before Congress about his involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.
Contradictions
87%
Examples:
- However, there may be instances where the author does not fully explore or explain the nuances of a particular case or decision, leading to potential misunderstandings or misinterpretations.
- The author frequently highlights contradictions and inconsistencies in the legal arguments and decisions covered. For example, in the article about the Supreme Court's ruling on Chevron, the author notes that the decision 'cut against established precedents and will hamstring the ability of regulatory agencies to impose rules on powerful business interests.' In another article, the author points out that some states challenged a federal plan directly in an appeals court after it was struck down by a lower court.
Deceptions
75%
Examples:
- The author generally avoids deceptive practices in the coverage. However, there may be instances where the author's language or framing could be misleading or create a false impression. For example, in the article about the Supreme Court's decision on race and school admissions, the author uses a misleading title that implies the Supreme Court has made a decision on race and school admissions when it only declined to hear a case challenging an elite public high school's policy of using race-neutral admissions standards.
Recent Articles
Supreme Court Ruling on Corner Post vs. Fed: Plaintiffs Can Challenge Regulations After Being Adversely Affected
Broke On: Monday, 01 July 2024The Supreme Court ruled in favor of North Dakota's Corner Post truck stop, challenging the Federal Reserve's regulation on debit-card swipe fees. The decision has implications for government regulations and could lead to an increase in regulatory challenges. The court held that a plaintiff's injury is an essential element in determining when the clock starts running for the statute of limitations under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). This ruling sets a precedent for challenging other regulations under the APA and comes amidst growing concerns about the size and power of administrative agencies. 
Supreme Court Overturns Chevron Doctrine, Limiting Federal Regulatory Authority
Broke On: Friday, 28 June 2024The Supreme Court's 6-3 decision on June 28, 2024, overturned the Chevron deference, limiting federal regulatory agencies' power to make rules in various sectors. This shift transfers power from the executive branch to Congress and courts. The ruling may impact education and environmental regulations, affecting student loan forgiveness and sex discrimination policies. The decision marks a significant step towards weakening the administrative state, which traces back to the New Deal era. Supreme Court Halts EPA's 'Good Neighbor' Plan to Limit Downwind Pollution: A Legal Battle Continues
Broke On: Thursday, 27 June 2024The Supreme Court has put the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) 'good neighbor' plan to limit downwind pollution on hold, dealing a blow to Biden administration efforts to address air quality issues. The ruling comes after three states and industry groups challenged the federal plan in court. The EPA argued that blocking the national rule would delay pollution control efforts, but opponents claim it goes against Congress' directive. The decision represents a major setback for environmental regulators and President Joe Biden's climate agenda. 
Supreme Court Upholds Gun Ban for Domestic Violence Restraining Order Cases: A Landmark Decision for Victim Safety
Broke On: Friday, 21 June 2024The Supreme Court upheld a federal law that bans guns for individuals under domestic violence restraining orders, marking the first major test of its 2022 gun rights ruling. In the case U.S. v. Rahimi, Chief Justice John Roberts affirmed historical practices and previous firearm laws to limit access to firearms for those who pose a credible threat to intimate partners. 
Senators Call for Recusals of Justices Thomas and Alito in Cases Related to Capitol Attack Amid Flag Controversies
Broke On: Thursday, 30 May 2024Raskin and Blumenthal call for recusals of Justices Thomas and Alito due to flag controversies linked to the 'Stop the Steal' effort. Alito explains his wife flew the flags, but ethicists criticize his reasoning. Public trust in Supreme Court is at stake amid ethics scandals and upcoming cases related to former President Trump. 
Supreme Court Approves Controversial South Carolina Congressional Map, Diluting Black Voting Power
Broke On: Thursday, 23 May 2024The Supreme Court upheld a South Carolina congressional map that removed thousands of Black voters from a district, ruling 6-3 that civil rights groups failed to prove racially motivated intent. The decision allows the contested Charleston-area district to be used in this year's elections, siding with Republicans prioritizing partisan advantage over minority representation. Supreme Court Upholds Consumer Financial Protection Bureau's Unique Funding Mechanism in Major Victory for Consumer Protection
Broke On: Thursday, 16 May 2024In a landmark 7-2 Supreme Court decision on May 16, 2024, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) and its unique funding mechanism were upheld, safeguarding consumer protection and regulatory independence. The court determined that the CFPB's funding through the Federal Reserve System met constitutional requirements under the Appropriations Clause. 
Supreme Court to Decide if Trump Has 'Absolute Immunity' from Criminal Prosecution for Official Acts During Presidency
Broke On: Thursday, 25 April 2024On April 25, 2024, the Supreme Court hears arguments on Donald Trump's claim for 'absolute immunity' from criminal prosecution for actions taken during his presidency regarding the 2020 election. The case tests presidential power and immunity post-office and sets a precedent for future presidents. 
Supreme Court to Decide on Biden Administration's Regulation of 'Ghost Guns': Implications for Gun Control Laws
Broke On: Monday, 22 April 2024The Supreme Court will review the Biden administration's regulations on 'ghost guns,' untraceable firearms that can be assembled at home, with both sides arguing over the interpretation of the Gun Control Act of 1968. The controversy centers around a regulation requiring manufacturers to have serial numbers and keep records, which was struck down but appealed by the Justice Department. Gun rights groups argue this is unconstitutional and could financially harm them. 
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Police Officer in Sex Discrimination Case: Jatonya Muldrow vs. City of St. Louis
Broke On: Wednesday, 17 April 2024In a landmark decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that a sex discrimination lawsuit filed by St. Louis police officer Jatonya Muldrow against her department for being transferred to an undesirable job can proceed. The ruling overturned a lower court decision and upheld Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on sex in any term, condition, or privilege of employment. Muldrow had been a dedicated and effective member of the Intelligence Division for nearly a decade before being transferred to patrol duty by her new supervisor. The Biden administration supported Muldrow's case and argued that discriminatory transfers always violate the law.