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. Liptak has been practicing law for 14 years, concentrating on First Amendment issues, and has worked at The New York Times Company's corporate legal department. He joined The Times' news staff in 2002 and started covering the Supreme Court in 2008. Liptak was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in 2009 and is a fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He 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. Liptak is committed to upholding journalistic ethics outlined in The Times' Ethical Journalism Handbook and does not participate in political causes or make political donations.
Biography:
https://www.nytimes.com/by/adam-liptak
75%
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
85%
Examples:
- Adam Liptak appears to maintain a neutral tone in his reporting and analysis of the Supreme Court cases. However, there are instances where he highlights the potential consequences of certain decisions on democracy and society, which could be perceived as leaning towards a liberal viewpoint.
- Additionally, Liptak has been recognized for his journalistic work with a Pulitzer Prize nomination and membership in the American Academy of Arts and Sciences.
- There are also instances where he discloses his background in law and his experience practicing First Amendment issues, which may give him a unique perspective on the cases he covers.
Conflicts of Interest
75%
Examples:
- He also acknowledges the potential for conflicts of interest arising from the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly in cases involving presidential immunity and challenges to federal regulatory authority.
- Liptak discloses his background in law and his experience practicing First Amendment issues, which may potentially raise concerns about conflicts of interest. However, there is no evidence to suggest that he has allowed his personal views or past experiences to influence his reporting.
Contradictions
85%
Examples:
- In several articles, Liptak reports on contradictions and inconsistencies in the Supreme Court's decisions, particularly in cases related to constitutional rights and federal regulatory authority. He also highlights the impact of these contradictions on ongoing legal disputes and the broader legal system.
- While he does not explicitly state his own opinion on these contradictions, his reporting presents a clear picture of the complexities and tensions within the current legal landscape.
Deceptions
65%
Examples:
- However, he presents these implications in a neutral and fact-based manner, without deliberately misleading or omitting key information.
- In some instances, Liptak reports on the potential implications of certain Supreme Court decisions, which may be perceived as deceptive by those who hold opposing viewpoints.
Recent Articles
Supreme Court Rulings on Presidential Immunity: Trump and CIA Cases Reveal Concerns for American Democracy
Broke On: Monday, 29 July 2024In a pair of landmark rulings, the Supreme Court has set precedents for presidential immunity, sparking debate over accountability and power. In June 2024, the Court granted former President Trump absolute immunity from criminal prosecution while in office. Critics warn this could shield future presidents from accountability. In July 2024, Justice Sotomayor dissented against a ruling on CIA involvement in rendition and interrogation programs during the Bush administration, expressing concerns about unchecked presidential power. 
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.