Do the Supreme Court "Shadow Papers" Reveal Supreme Court Hypocrisy?

The article centers academic legal experts (Baude and Re) responding to a critical narrative about Supreme Court decision-making, framing the discussion as a defense or rebuttal rather than investigation. The headline uses charged language ('hypocrisy') while the framing positions academic pushback as the primary perspective. Reason's libertarian orientation typically favors institutional skepticism, but this piece emphasizes academic counterargument over independent reporting.

Primary voices: academic or expert, media outlet

• This article does not address original reporting on the 'Shadow Papers' or their contents beyond the academic response
• This article does not center voices of critics or those who raised the initial hypocrisy charge