How It Works
Read. Argue. Vote. Shape the system.
The CourtRoom is a public deliberation platform for real court cases. Four steps, no account required to take part.
Read the record
Every case opens with a plain-language account of what happened, who it happened to, and what is actually being decided. Underneath it sits the real material: the opinion, the docket, the filings, linked to the public court record through CourtListener. The summary is a way in, not a replacement. If our framing and the filing disagree, the filing is the one that counts.
Hear both sides
Arguments are organized by the side they support, not by popularity, so the case against your position is as easy to find as the case for it. Anyone can post an argument, cite a source, or reply. Jurors can argue the side they would vote against, declared openly as devil's advocate, because the strongest version of an opposing argument is worth more than a weak one you can dismiss.
Cast your verdict
You vote just or unjust, say how confident you are, and predict how the room will go. No account is required to vote. The split is shown live, and if reading the arguments changes your mind, changing your vote is recorded as a credit rather than treated as inconsistency.
Shape the system
Verdicts, arguments, and the reasoning behind them stay on the public record. The point is not to overturn a court. It is to build a durable, citable account of what the public actually thought about a decision, and why, in language anyone can read.
Where the cases come from
Cases are drawn from the public court record. Where a case exists in CourtListener, the free legal database maintained by the Free Law Project, we link to the docket and opinion directly so anyone can check our summary against the source. Federal statutes are resolved against the United States Code, and citations are looked up rather than paraphrased.
Cases are selected and written by our editorial team. Anyone can submit one for consideration, and submissions are reviewed before they reach the docket.
How we keep it honest
Arguments are attributed
Every argument carries the juror who made it and the time they made it. Anonymous participation is allowed for reading and voting, not for building a reputation.
Devil's advocate is declared
Arguing against your own verdict is encouraged and labelled as such. Claiming it falsely is a reportable offense.
Changing your mind counts for you
Standing is awarded when an argument changes someone's vote, and to the person who changed it. The incentive points at persuasion, not volume.
Privileged actions are logged
Every edit made by an administrator or case editor is recorded in an append-only audit trail that not even an administrator can alter.