{"id":51686,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/did-justice-stevens-pull-a-fast-one-the-hidden-logic-of-a-recent-retroactivity-case-in-the-supreme-court.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"did-justice-stevens-pull-a-fast-one-the-hidden-logic-of-a-recent-retroactivity-case-in-the-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/did-justice-stevens-pull-a-fast-one-the-hidden-logic-of-a-recent-retroactivity-case-in-the-supreme-court.html","title":{"rendered":"Did Justice Stevens Pull a Fast One? The Hidden Logic of a Recent Retroactivity Case in the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-8f761849  fl-block-columns fl-sectionWithSidebar fl-container fl-flex fl-flex-wrap fl-gap30\">\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-page-articles   fl-block-column fl-section-main fl-section-main-full-width\">\n        <div class=\"yui-g\" id=\"leftcol-module\">\n\n      <!-- Right Line of Links Section -->\n\n      <!-- BEGIN PICTURE INSERTION -->\n\n\n      <!-- BEGIN TITLE AND AUTHOR INSERTION -->\n\n      <table>\n\n        <tr>\n\n\n\n          <td width=\"100\" rowspan=\"3\" class=\"wiauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/writ\/michael.dorf.jpg\" border=\"0\"><\/a><\/td>\n\n          <td class=\"wititle\"><h1>Did Justice Stevens Pull a Fast One? The Hidden Logic of a Recent Retroactivity Case in the Supreme Court<\/h1><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"wiauthor\"><a href=\"\/legal-commentary\/michael-dorf-archive\" class=\"graybold\"><h2>By MICHAEL C. DORF<\/h2><\/a><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"widate\">Monday, Feb. 25, 2008<\/td>\n\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/table>\n      <span class=\"smalltext\">\n\n\n<p>Last week, in <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Danforth v. Minnesota<\/a><\/i><\/b>, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state court was free to give greater protection to defendants&#8217; rights than the Supreme Court itself requires. Stated that way, the decision is hardly news. In our system of federalism, federal constitutional law is not a ceiling, but a floor. It sets out the minimum protections to which people are entitled. If states&#8211;through their constitutions or otherwise&#8211;choose to add protection, that is their prerogative.<\/p> <p>Yet <i>Danforth <\/i>was no ordinary application of the floor-but-not-a-ceiling principle, because the question in the case was not whether Minnesota could interpret its own <u>state<\/u> law more broadly than federal law. Everyone accepts that it (like every other state) can. The question in <i>Danforth <\/i>was whether Minnesota could over-protect <u>federal<\/u> law. Perhaps surprisingly, the Supreme Court said yes.<\/p> <div id=\"writthreetwenty\">\n<script language=\"Javascript\">dart_call(\"300x250\", \"ptile=2\", 0); <\/script><\/div>\n<p>Although the <i>Danforth <\/i>case involved highly technical and somewhat convoluted doctrine, it nonetheless warrants unpacking, for it may reveal an unexpected and important shift in the Justices&#8217; thinking about the relationship of state law to federal law.<\/p> <p><b>The <i>Danforth<\/i> Case and the Retroactivity Question<\/b><\/p> <p>At Stephen Danforth&#8217;s 1996 trial for sexual conduct with a minor, the prosecution introduced a videotaped interview of his six-year-old victim. Danforth objected to this evidence, but the state courts rejected the objection under the standard the Supreme Court had set forth in the 1980 case of <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Ohio v. Roberts<\/a><\/i><\/b>: whether the evidence was sufficiently reliable to satisfy the Sixth Amendment right of the accused to confront his accuser. Danforth was convicted.<\/p> <p>After Danforth had exhausted his direct appeals, in 2004, the Supreme Court overruled the <i>Roberts <\/i>decision. In <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Crawford v. Washington<\/a><\/i><\/b>, the Justices held that the admission into evidence of videotaped testimony of a witness who is otherwise available for trial, violates the Sixth Amendment (which applies to the states via the Fourteenth Amendment). After the <i>Crawford <\/i>decision, Danforth filed a habeas corpus petition in Minnesota state court, seeking a new trial.<\/p> <p>If Danforth had sought habeas relief in federal court, he would have lost. Under the Supreme Court&#8217;s landmark 1989 decision in <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Teague v. Lane<\/a><\/i><\/b>, federal courts do not grant habeas relief to state prisoners based on &#8220;new rules&#8221; of constitutional law, except in two narrow circumstances. The rationale for the <i>Teague <\/i>rule is straightforward: States have a strong interest in the finality of criminal convictions; if a defendant had a trial that conformed to the constitutional standards that were understood to apply at the time of that trial, then the state generally should not have to re-try the defendant simply because it failed to anticipate a novel decision by the Supreme Court.<\/p> <p>A contrary rule would put too great a burden on the state and could also create a disincentive for the Justices to recognize constitutional rights: If recognizing a new constitutional right required new trials for defendants who had originally been tried decades earlier, then the Justices would be very reluctant ever to recognize new rights.<\/p> <p>So, did <i>Crawford <\/i>announce a new rule? Of course it did. Further, the Court said in the 2007 case of <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Whorton v. Bockting<\/a><\/i><\/b>, <i>Crawford<\/i>&#8216;s new rule requiring live testimony&#8211;overruling <i>Roberts<\/i>&#8211;did not fit into either of the exceptions to the <i>Teague <\/i>non-retroactivity principle. Thus, Danforth could not get federal habeas relief based on <i>Crawford<\/i>.<\/p> <!-- MIDDLE AD PLACEHOLDER -->\n<p>Moreover, all the Justices agreed that the Minnesota courts were <u>not required<\/u> to apply <i>Crawford <\/i>in Danforth&#8217;s case. After all, the same fear of opening old cases that leads to the application of the <i>Teague<\/i> non-retroactivity rule in federal court, applies to state habeas cases also.<\/p> <p>The Minnesota Supreme Court went a step further, however: It also said that the state courts were <u>not permitted<\/u> to apply <i>Crawford<\/i> retroactively in Danforth&#8217;s case.<\/p> <p><b>Is Retroactivity a Choice-of-Law Question or a Remedial Question?<\/b><\/p> <p>In the U.S. Supreme Court, two Justices&#8211;Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy&#8211;agreed with the Minnesota Supreme Court. <i>Crawford <\/i>was an interpretation of federal constitutional law, they said, and therefore the question whether to apply it retroactively is also a question of federal law. And citing precedents going back to the early Eighteenth Century, the Chief Justice said that the Supreme Court, not state courts, decides federal questions.<\/p> <p>The 7-2 majority, in an opinion by Justice Stevens, did not exactly disagree with the Chief Justice&#8217;s general point. If retroactivity were a pure question of federal law, Stevens acknowledged, then the Minnesota courts would not be free to fashion a view of retroactivity that differed from the Supreme Court&#8217;s view. But the majority did not view retroactivity as a purely federal question.<\/p> <p>Whether to apply <i>Crawford <\/i>or any other federal decision retroactively is a question of remedy, the majority said, and &#8220;the remedy a state court chooses to provide its citizens for violations of the Federal Constitution is primarily a question of state law.&#8221; Federal law, in this now-familiar view, creates a floor but not a ceiling: States must give retroactive remedial effect to decisions the Supreme Court says apply retroactively, but states are also free to choose whether or not to give retroactive remedial effect to decisions the Supreme Court says they are not required to apply retroactively.<\/p> <p>The dissenters strenuously objected to the characterization of retroactivity as a question of remedy. <i>Teague <\/i>and subsequent cases, the dissenters said, treat retroactivity as a question of what law applies to a given case&#8211;old law or new law. And that question, they added, can, itself, only be a matter of federal law.<\/p> <p><b>The Puzzling <\/b><b>Split<\/b><b> in the <i>Danforth<\/i> Case<\/b><i><\/i><\/p> <p>For non-specialists&#8211;indeed, even for specialists&#8211;it is difficult to see why the result in the <i>Danforth<\/i> case should have turned on the semantic question of whether we characterize retroactivity as a matter of remedy or a matter of choice of law (old or new). Surely, one thinks, there must be something else driving the decision. But what?<\/p> <p>Ideology is not a very good candidate. Although the Court&#8217;s most liberal Justices&#8211;Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer&#8211;were all in the majority, the case split the conservatives: Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito joined the majority, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy dissented. Nor is that result entirely surprising as an ideological matter, because the case pitted two conservative principles against each other: On one hand, allowing the state courts to give greater retroactive effect to Supreme Court decisions than the Justices themselves requires, vindicates states&#8217; rights. On the other hand, denying state courts that right vindicates the competing conservative principle of finality in criminal law.<\/p> <p>Although general principles of conservatism cannot explain the split in <i>Danforth<\/i>, perhaps other &#8220;psychological&#8221; analyses of the Justices can shed some light on the ruling. In his majority opinion in <i>Danforth<\/i>, Justice Stevens repeatedly invoked&#8211;and quoted at length from&#8211;earlier decisions written by Justice Scalia. Moreover, the underlying principle at stake came from the <i>Crawford <\/i>opinion, which Justice Scalia authored for the Court.  Nonetheless, it is hard to believe that Justice Scalia would have voted with Justice Stevens simply out of vanity or gratitude for the respect granted his prior work.<\/p> <p><b>Did Justice Stevens Hoodwink Six of His Colleagues?<\/b><\/p> <p>Moreover, <i>Danforth <\/i>is an especially puzzling decision in light of another case&#8211;one not mentioned by either the majority or dissent. In 1983, in <b><i><a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/\" rel=\"noopener\">Michigan v. Long<\/a><\/i><\/b>, the Court confronted the question of whether it had jurisdiction to entertain a petition by a state alleging that its own state high court had over-protected federal constitutional rights. In that case, the Michigan Supreme Court&#8217;s opinion was unclear as to whether the ruling was based on federal law alone or a combination of state and federal law. The Court said that jurisdiction was proper in the case, but more importantly for our purposes, Justice Stevens wrote a remarkable solo dissent.<\/p> <p>In <i>Long<\/i>,<i> <\/i>Justice Stevens said that the Supreme Court should <u>never<\/u> reverse a decision by a state court over-protecting federal rights. Over-protection of American citizens&#8217; federal constitutional rights by Michigan, he said, is no different from over-protection of American citizens&#8217; rights by a foreign nation such as Finland.<\/p> <p>Not surprisingly, no other Justice agreed with this characterization of Michigan and Finland as standing in the same relationship relative to the United States, for the obvious reason that Michigan is part of the United States, while Finland is not. As the majority opinion in the <i>Long <\/i>case noted in response to Justice Stevens, state courts issue thousands of final rulings of federal law each year. Accordingly, the view expressed by Justice Stevens would threaten the uniformity of federal law.<\/p> <p>The same point was raised in vain by Chief Justice Roberts last week in his <i>Danforth <\/i>dissent. The retroactive effect of a federal constitutional ruling, he said, is a question of federal law, and so giving states latitude to give such a ruling extra retroactive effect results in the disuniformity of federal law.<\/p> <p>Justice Stevens had a response in <i>Danforth <\/i>that did not, as a technical matter, depend on his view that Michigan (or Minnesota) is no different from Finland: Retroactivity, he pointed out, is primarily a matter of state law. And everyone agrees that state courts can fashion their own rules of state law.<\/p> <p>Nonetheless, it is difficult to shake the impression that Justice Stevens pulled a fast one in <i>Danforth<\/i>, mostly because he did not clearly explain <u>why<\/u> the retroactivity of a decision of federal law should be a matter of state law. Article I, Section 6 of the <b><a href=\"http:\/\/www.house.leg.state.mn.us\/cco\/rules\/mncon\/Article1.htm\" rel=\"noopener\">Minnesota Constitution<\/a><\/b> contains a Confrontation Clause that is virtually identical to the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. No one doubts the authority of the Minnesota Supreme Court to interpret its state constitutional provision to embody the <i>Crawford <\/i>rule, and to apply that interpretation retroactively. However, the <i>Danforth <\/i>decision confers on the state courts a very different power.<\/p> <p>If, God knows why, Finland were to decide to apply <i>Crawford <\/i>retroactively, that would be no concern of the U.S. Supreme Court. But Minnesota is not Finland.<\/p>  \n\n\n<\/span>\n\n\n\n<hr size=\"1\">\n<p class=\"authorfoot\">\n\n<!-- BEGIN AUTHORS FOOTNOTE -->\n<a name=\"bio\"><\/a>\nMichael C. Dorf is the Isidor &amp; Seville Sulzbacher Professor of Law at Columbia University. He is the author of <i>No Litmus Test: Law and Politics in the Twenty-First Century<\/i> and he blogs at <a href=\"http:\/\/www.michaeldorf.org\/\" target=\"_blank\" class=\"author-link\" rel=\"noopener\">www.michaeldorf.org<\/a>.\n<br><br>\n\n<\/p>\n\n\n\n    <\/div><div class=\"was-this-helpful\">\n    <div\n            class=\"was-this-helpful__question-container\"\n            aria-labelledby=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n            role=\"group\"\n    >\n        <span\n                id=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__question fl-text-lg-bold\"\n        >Was this helpful?<\/span>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"Yes\"\n                value=\"yes\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">Yes<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-up\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3418)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M6 21H3C2.46957 21 1.96086 20.7893 1.58579 20.4142C1.21071 20.0391 1 19.5304 1 19V12C1 11.4696 1.21071 10.9609 1.58579 10.5858C1.96086 10.2107 2.46957 10 3 10H6M13 8V4C13 3.20435 12.6839 2.44129 12.1213 1.87868C11.5587 1.31607 10.7956 1 10 1L6 10V21H17.28C17.7623 21.0055 18.2304 20.8364 18.5979 20.524C18.9654 20.2116 19.2077 19.7769 19.28 19.3L20.66 10.3C20.7035 10.0134 20.6842 9.72068 20.6033 9.44225C20.5225 9.16382 20.3821 8.90629 20.1919 8.68751C20.0016 8.46873 19.7661 8.29393 19.5016 8.17522C19.2371 8.0565 18.9499 7.99672 18.66 8H13Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\"\n                              stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><\/path>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3418\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"><\/rect>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"No\"\n                value=\"no\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">No<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-down\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3423)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M16 0.999995H18.67C19.236 0.989986 19.7859 1.18813 20.2154 1.55681C20.645 1.9255 20.9242 2.43905 21 3V10C20.9242 10.5609 20.645 11.0745 20.2154 11.4432C19.7859 11.8119 19.236 12.01 18.67 12H16M9.00003 14V18C9.00003 18.7956 9.3161 19.5587 9.87871 20.1213C10.4413 20.6839 11.2044 21 12 21L16 12V0.999995H4.72003C4.2377 0.994543 3.76965 1.16359 3.40212 1.47599C3.0346 1.78839 2.79235 2.22309 2.72003 2.7L1.34003 11.7C1.29652 11.9866 1.31586 12.2793 1.39669 12.5577C1.47753 12.8362 1.61793 13.0937 1.80817 13.3125C1.99842 13.5313 2.23395 13.7061 2.49846 13.8248C2.76297 13.9435 3.05012 14.0033 3.34003 14H9.00003Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"\/>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3423\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"\/>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n    <\/div>\n    <span class=\"was-this-helpful__taken-action fl-text-sm-bold\"><\/span>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-container\">\n        <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n            <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n        <\/div>\n        <form class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form\">\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--positive\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Easy to understand\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                        >Easy to understand<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Solved my problem\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                        >Solved my problem<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--negative\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this not helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n                        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Missing Information\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                        >Missing the information I need<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Too complicated\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                        >Too complicated \/ too many steps<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Out of date\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                        >Out of date<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__form-buttons-container\">\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--positive at-feedback-submit fl-button secondary\"\n                    type=\"submit\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Submit<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-angle-right medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--cancel fl-button primary disabled\"\n                    type=\"reset\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Cancel<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-times-circle medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/form>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message\" role=\"status\">\n        <i class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-icon fa fa-check\"><\/i>\n        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-text\" aria-live=\"polite\"><\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n    <\/div>\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-block-column fl-section-sidebar\">\n        \n    <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"parent":49876,"menu_order":0,"template":"app\/Http\/Controllers\/Templates\/ArticlePageController.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-51686","supreme","type-supreme","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/51686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/supreme"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/49876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=51686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}