Glenna did an unusual thing that people typically don't do: she checked a citation in a law review article to see whether the citation said what the authors claimed it did. She found that the citation said the opposite of what the authors claimed it did. She then asked the editor of the law review for a correction. The editor did not reply to the request. She then asked the authors for comment on the incorrect citation. The authors acknowledged that the citation was erroneous and regretted the error. The authors then insisted that the citation did not matter to their actual argument because nothing in their argument depended on the citation being right. Glenna then wrote a post explaining why the erroneous citation was in fact important to their actual argument, and why the erroneous citation also exposed a wider ignorance of the subject on which the authors were writing. (She claims, convincingly, that it's important to know what sex is in order to understand what sex discrimination is, and that being able to define what sex is is an inextricable aspect of knowing what sex is.) I consulted with some lawyer friends in a chat group who helpfully explained to me that no one ever reads footnotes, no one checks the underlying references, and no one cares if they are correct or not because law review articles like the one Murray and Shaw published are merely political advocacy masquerading as legal scholarship that no one reads, and therefore not to expect the Supreme Court Review to issue a correction for a citation that the authors are on the record admitting was erroneous. Do I have all that right, @williambaude?