Read on Twitter
This is part of an unofficial movement in the federal judiciary these last few years to make opinions more accessible and interesting. In theory, those are laudable goals, especially if it means that laypeople can read judicial opinions and understand them. 1/ https://twitter.com/deniseharle/status/1336749981206794240
In practice, though, it's complicated! First, lawyers and judges don't agree with one another on where to draw the line between "accessible" and "corny/self-indulgent." 2/
Second, I have found that views on a technique that's a bit "out there" in opinions or briefs often reflect whether the critic is ideologically aligned with the judge or legal position, even if the critic feels no conscious bias. 3/
And third, a lot depends on the details: Does the "fun" bit help the reader understand the law or the facts? Is it otherwise entertaining and therefore harmless? Is it appropriate given the subject matter? Or...does it seem like the writer is mostly trying to seem clever? End/
