CourtListener - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

Overall, we rate CourtListener as least biased due to its impartial presentation of legal information. We also rate the platform High for factual reporting due to its accurate legal data and avoidance of editorializing or endorsing specific viewpoints.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: United States
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

CourtListener is a free legal research website created by the Free Law Project in 2013. Originally conceived by Michael Lissner in 2010 during his time at UC Berkeley’s School of Information, it began as a basic alerting tool for circuit courts.

Headquartered In Oakland, California, CourtListener offers unrestricted access to a vast collection of legal opinions from federal and state courts. Its mission is to facilitate legal research for lawyers, journalists, academics, and the public while promoting transparency and equity in the legal field.

Read our profile on the United States media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

CourtListener is operated by the Free Law Project, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit funded by donations, grants, and sponsorships. The Free Law Project has a Three-Star rating of 83% on Charity Navigator, primarily reflecting its Accountability & Finance score. The project aims to create an open-source, open-access legal research ecosystem led by William E. Palin, with Brian Carver and Michael Lissner as co-founders. Please click the link to see team and board member details.

Analysis / Bias

CourtListener offers a comprehensive database of legal opinions and court documents and user-friendly tools for searching and analyzing these materials. The platform’s advanced search options and citation visualizations enhance the research experience for legal professionals, journalists, academics, and the general public.

One notable feature is the SCOTUS Mapper, which allows users to visualize connections among Supreme Court cases. While CourtListener is generally free, the “Make a Network” feature requires users to sign in to their CourtListener accounts. Additionally, the platform hosts the RECAP Archive, which aggregates documents from the PACER (The Public Access to Court Electronic Records) system, offering an alternative to the fee-based access provided by PACER itself.

CourtListener maintains a neutral stance, avoiding editorialization or endorsement of specific viewpoints in its presentation of legal information. Its content is factual, well-organized, and consistently updated. In addition, both ProPublica, a nonprofit newsroom with a left-center bias, and Wall Street Journal, rated right-center biased by MBFC, have incorporated CourtListener’s data into their reporting on judicial conflicts. Therefore, CourtListener demonstrates minimal bias and is fact-based.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years.

Overall, we rate CourtListener as least biased due to its impartial presentation of legal information. We also rate the platform High for factual reporting due to its accurate legal data and avoidance of editorializing or endorsing specific viewpoints. (M. Huitsing 01/13/2023) Updated (05/06/2024)

Source: courtlistener.com

Last Updated on May 6, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check