A brief can be polished, carefully argued, and written by experienced advocates, and still contain citation problems worth a second look. We ran RealityCheck on a recently filed cert petition. Three findings deserved a second look before filing.
A quotation with two changed words
The brief quoted Boumediene as saying that “the purpose and effect of the substitute was to expedite consideration of the detainee’s claims.” The opinion says “statute” and “prisoner’s.” Neither change was bracketed. The new words fit the brief’s framing, which is exactly why they needed brackets.
A characterization that stretched
The brief said Jennings “made clear” that courts shouldn’t read § 1252(b)(9) to sweep up “extreme” cases like this one. In Jennings, “extreme” describes a reading of the statute, not a category of cases.
A rule missing its condition
The brief drew a rule from Justice Kennedy’s Demore concurrence: due process forbids detention “to incarcerate for other reasons.” But the concurrence ties that inquiry to a trigger. It arises only “were there to be an unreasonable delay” in deportation proceedings. The brief stated the rule without it.
Why these slip through
None of these is a typo, and a cite-checker that only confirms a case exists would miss all three. Each is a gap between what the source says and what the brief uses it for. RealityCheck sets the source beside the brief’s use of it, so you can decide in seconds whether the gap matters.
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)
.svg)