Home/ Methodology

Methodology

How cases are scoped, how claims are tagged, and the editorial line that runs through everything published here.

What a FocusBench case is

A case is a self-contained focal point on a structural feature of the legal system that the project finds worth examining. A case generally:

1. Names something specific — a particular rule, doctrine, opinion, or structural pattern that can be pointed at.
2. Draws on public material — statute, court records, institutional publications, established secondary sources.
3. Is structural — the case turns on how the system is built or how its components fit together, not on the conduct of any single named individual.
4. Looks for a remedy — or, where no remedy is in view, says so explicitly.

The three claim tiers

Claims on this site are flagged at one of three working tiers. The tiers are practical rather than formal — they describe how confident the project is in a given statement, not a courtroom standard of proof.

Documented

Material that the project takes to be a mainstream legal or historical fact — a statute, a published opinion, a court holding, a well-attested historical event — based on the sources currently in hand. Documented does not mean unanimous; it means we have a reasonable basis to treat the claim as a fact for analytical purposes.

Contested

A position or framework that has support in the literature and coherent internal logic, but is not accepted as a settled matter by mainstream courts or by the majority of legal scholars. Contested material is documented because it is theoretically influential — it shapes legal-reform discourse or recurs in litigation — not because the project endorses it as doctrine or as courtroom strategy.

Open

A question whose resolution is not settled by the publicly available record. Open-tier items are work the project has not yet done, or that would require archival or institutional access to close. Where a resolution method is identifiable, it is noted.

The tiers may be applied unevenly across pages as the project matures; corrections and re-tagging will happen in place.

Editorial line

Institution and structure, not individual

The unit of analysis is the institution and the structural condition, not the individual. Named individuals appear sparingly — when they do, it is because their public-record institutional role is directly relevant to the case (e.g., a Supreme Court Reporter who inserted a contested headnote in 1886). The site does not make diagnostic claims about named persons; it describes structural features of the institutions they occupy or once occupied.

Public-record affiliations only

Where institutional actors are identified, they are identified from sources that are themselves on the public record — statute, court documents, published reference works, established news reporting. Private information about named individuals is not published.

Restorative, not punitive

The site documents structural failure with an eye to identifying what would close the failure. The prevailing tone is descriptive and constructive rather than accusatory. Where a remedy framework exists, it is laid out alongside the analysis.

Non-partisan

Structural failures in legal institutions do not align cleanly with political camps. The cases here are intended to be readable across the political spectrum. Where a case touches politically charged territory, the analysis stays on the structural feature.

Working sourcing practice

In rough order of preference:

• Primary sources — bar opinions, statutes, court records, agency publications, institutional publications, when accessible.
• Established secondary sources — major news of record, peer-reviewed legal-academic literature, standard reference works.
• Working synthesis — analytical claims derived from the above, presented as analysis rather than as further citation.

Where a case rests on contested-tier material, the project tries to keep that material visually and rhetorically separate from the documented core. That separation is the goal; it is not a guarantee of perfect execution on every page.

What the site does not do

• Investigative reporting on private individuals.
• Litigation strategy or filing-template publication.
• Legal advice. (FocusBench is a reference, not counsel.)
• Diagnostic claims about named persons.
• Coverage of cases that turn on the conduct of a single individual rather than a structural pattern.

Corrections

Errors of fact are corrected directly. Contested or open claims that resolve over time are updated and re-tagged. Corrections, counter-citations, and suggestions are welcomed at tips@focusbench.org.