This is more common than one might think. Despite what the Justices will tell you, the Supreme Court exists entirely to shape policy. The underlying truth of the events in a case that they accept do not matter. They pick and choose the cases they want to hear so that they can shape policy, and if the actual facts don’t line up exactly with the policy that they want to make then they will twist the facts, even make them up, to fit their decision. Even if they hadn’t taken this concocted story then there would have been another one right around the corner.
Although not the Supreme Court, this is famously illustrated by Palsgraf (a case taught in every law school in the country) where the author of the opinion, Cardozo, just butchered the facts to lay out his reasoning for cutting off liability. He didn’t even bother to mention the plaintiff by name.
This is more common than one might think. Despite what the Justices will tell you, the Supreme Court exists entirely to shape policy. The underlying truth of the events in a case that they accept do not matter. They pick and choose the cases they want to hear so that they can shape policy, and if the actual facts don’t line up exactly with the policy that they want to make then they will twist the facts, even make them up, to fit their decision. Even if they hadn’t taken this concocted story then there would have been another one right around the corner.
Although not the Supreme Court, this is famously illustrated by Palsgraf (a case taught in every law school in the country) where the author of the opinion, Cardozo, just butchered the facts to lay out his reasoning for cutting off liability. He didn’t even bother to mention the plaintiff by name.