Corrections to the Trump v. Slaughter opinion

{
  "_meta": {
    "case_docket": "25-332",
    "case_name": "Trump v. Slaughter",
    "version_original": "1.0",
    "version_corrected": "1.1",
    "original_published_at": "2026-05-12",
    "errata_published_at": "2026-05-13",
    "discovered_by": "verify-citations v0.1.0 (the Step 6.5 Pre-Publication Gate tool, run for the first time on this case)",
    "neutrality_discipline": "Per spec v0.4 §12 (Versioning Discipline), Tenth Seat opinions are immutable except for explicit errata. These three corrections preserve the original (v1.0) misquoted text below; the live v1.1 opinion at /cases/25-332/opinion and /cases/25-332/dissent incorporates the corrections. None of the corrections changed a doctrinal conclusion or a disposition; all involved quoted text that did not appear verbatim in the cited source."
  },
  "errata": [
    {
      "id": "E1",
      "type": "misquotation",
      "severity": "minor",
      "opinion": "majority",
      "approximate_line_v1_0": 63,
      "original_quoted_text": "publish[ed] reports for the information of Congress.",
      "corrected_quoted_text": "investigations and reports thereon for the information of Congress.",
      "cited_source": "Humphrey's Executor v. United States, 295 U.S. 602, 621 (1935)",
      "source_verbatim": "In making investigations and reports thereon for the information of Congress under § 6, in aid of the legislative power, it acts as a legislative agency.",
      "explanation": "The bracketed word 'publish[ed]' implied the source used the verb 'publish' (modified for grammar). The source uses 'make' / 'making', not 'publish'. The proposition (the 1935 FTC conducted investigations and reports for Congress) is unaffected; the specific word inside the quotation marks was inaccurate."
    },
    {
      "id": "E2",
      "type": "misquotation",
      "severity": "minor",
      "opinion": "majority",
      "approximate_line_v1_0": 95,
      "original_quoted_text": "were part of the President's Cabinet\" and \"indisputably removable at will.",
      "corrected_quoted_text": "were part of the President's Cabinet and therefore removable at will.",
      "cited_source": "Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 253 n.19 (2021)",
      "source_verbatim": "three of those Commissioners were part of the President's Cabinet and therefore removable at will.",
      "explanation": "The word 'indisputably' does not appear in Collins. Footnote 19 of the Collins majority uses 'therefore'. The v1.0 opinion fabricated the modifier while preserving the proposition (the three Cabinet officers were removable at will). The corrected version is a single contiguous verbatim quotation from the source."
    },
    {
      "id": "E3",
      "type": "misquotation",
      "severity": "minor",
      "opinion": "dissent",
      "approximate_line_v1_0": 53,
      "original_quoted_text": "indisputably removable at will.",
      "corrected_quoted_text": "removable at will.",
      "cited_source": "Collins v. Yellen, 594 U.S. 220, 253 n.19 (2021)",
      "source_verbatim": "three of those Commissioners were part of the President's Cabinet and therefore removable at will.",
      "explanation": "The dissent repeated the majority's fabricated modifier 'indisputably'. The corrected version quotes only the verbatim phrase 'removable at will', which appears in Collins both in footnote 19 and at multiple other points. The proposition (these three Cabinet officers were at-will) is unchanged."
    }
  ],
  "notes": {
    "false_positives_not_corrected": [
      "Two additional verifier findings on the v1.0 opinion ('asked to extend these precedents to a new situation', majority §I(c); '[T]he President's management of the Executive Branch...', majority §II) were investigated and confirmed as accurate quotations against the cited sources. Their initial 'not_found' status reflected limitations of the verifier's fuzzy-match threshold with nested-quote and bracket+ellipsis patterns. The verifier's v2 work tracks these as known false-negative cases."
    ],
    "unverifiable_not_corrected": [
      "One verifier finding (dissent §V, 'He invited the Court to overrule Wiener as well') is attributed to the Solicitor General's brief. Briefs are not in any case corpus and could not be verified by the tool; manual review of the public brief confirmed the attribution."
    ],
    "spec_alignment": "This errata satisfies spec v0.4 §12 (Versioning Discipline): the original opinion remains accessible (see git history at commit 0d9d732 for the unedited v1.0); the v1.1 currently served at /cases/25-332/opinion and /cases/25-332/dissent applies the corrections; and this artifact documents what changed and why."
  }
}