The Onion Filed a Brief With the Supreme Court. It's Not a Joke
The case involves petitioner Anthony Novak, who faced criminal charges linked to the police department parody page he made on Facebook.
October 04, 2022 at 04:14 PM
4 minute read
It's not every day the US Supreme Court is graced with a brief from a party describing itself as "the single most powerful and influential organization in human history." But that's what the justices received Monday, with the docketing of an atypical friend-of-court brief from parody website The Onion.
The brief is laced with dramatic hyperbole, jabs at the self-seriousness of the legal profession, and outlandish, obviously false declarations of fact. Filing a parody brief was of course the point, the site's lawyers explained, as they threw their support behind an Ohio man arrested for publishing a Facebook page making fun of his local police department.
"The Onion cannot stand idly by in the face of a ruling that threatens to disembowel a form of rhetoric that has existed for millennia, that is particularly potent in the realm of political debate, and that, purely incidentally, forms the basis of The Onion's writers' paychecks," the site's lawyer Stephen van Stempvoort wrote.
The case involves petitioner Anthony Novak, who faced criminal charges linked to the police department parody page he made on Facebook. He was briefly jailed after his arrest and went to trial, where he was acquitted.
Novak filed a civil suit against the arresting officers and the city of Parma, Ohio, arguing that his constitutional rights were violated. Novak and his lawyers petitioned the Supreme Court to step in after a federal appeals court ruled the officers were protected against being sued by a legal doctrine known as qualified immunity. Justices have yet to decide whether to hear the case.
4.3 Trillion Readers
The Onion routinely skewers the high court, and refused to take a more staid approach when directly addressing the justices. The filing mixes sarcasm, self-deprecation, and jokes with legal arguments and analysis more typical of a traditional Supreme Court brief.
The filing begins by mimicking the typical start of an amicus brief, in which a party explains its interest in the case and why the justices should consider its input. The Onion facetiously claimed to have "daily readership of 4.3 trillion" and told the court that it "owns and operates the majority of the world's transoceanic shipping lanes, stands on the nation's leading edge on matters of deforestation and strip mining, and proudly conducts tests on millions of animals daily."
It pokes fun at the US legal system's use of Latin phrases, noting that The Onion's own motto is "Tu stultus es," which translates to, "You are dumb." The "federal judiciary is staffed entirely by total Latin dorks," van Stempvoort writes, suggesting judges "sweetly whisper 'stare decisis' into their spouses' ear."
The brief even argues its writers "have garnered a sterling reputation for accurately forecasting future events," citing a 2017 satire post that presaged the real federal investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of government records at his Mar-a-Lago home.
Can't Take a Joke
The Onion brief also highlights what it contends are the not-so-funny stakes of a legal system that doesn't protect people who take on the powerful via comedy.
"The Onion regularly pokes its finger in the eyes of repressive and authoritarian regimes, such as the Islamic Republic of Iran, the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea, and domestic presidential administrations," van Stempvoort wrote. "So The Onion's professional parodists were less than enthralled to be confronted with a legal ruling that fails to hold government actors accountable for jailing and prosecuting a would-be humorist simply for making fun of them."
The site pushed back on the idea that humor needs advance warning, arguing that would "pop the balloon" of parody from the start and assume "ordinary readers are less sophisticated and humorless than they actually are." The brief unpacks the machinations of this type of comedy, explaining that the idea is to first trick the reader into thinking the content is real "and then allowing them to laugh at their own gullibility."
Van Stempvoort referred a request for comment to a spokesperson for The Onion, which did not immediately respond.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllClimate Disputes, International Arbitration, and State Court Limitations for Global Issues
Judicial Face-Off: Navigating the Ethical and Efficient Use of AI in Legal Practice [CLE Pending]
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250