Ranking Methodology
Our trust rankings are calculated using verified data from multiple authoritative sources. This page explains exactly how we calculate scores and where our data comes from.
Data Sources
CourtListener is a free legal research website containing millions of legal opinions from federal and state courts. We use their API to pull judge profiles, court information, and case data.
We aggregate disciplinary records and bar complaints from state bar associations across the country. This data helps identify patterns of misconduct and ethical violations.
Community feedback from verified users who have interacted with judges, courts, and clerks. Reviews are moderated to ensure authenticity and prevent abuse.
The Federal Judicial Center provides biographical information on all federal judges, including appointment history, education, and career background.
Trust Score Calculation
Trust scores are calculated on a scale of 0-100 using a weighted algorithm that considers multiple factors:
Base Score (40%)
All judges, courts, and clerks start with a base score of 70/100. This represents the assumption of competence and integrity until evidence suggests otherwise.
User Reviews (25%)
Average star rating from verified user reviews, weighted by recency. Recent reviews (within 1 year) carry 2x the weight of older reviews. Minimum 3 reviews required for this factor to apply.
review_score = (avg_rating / 5) * 100 * recency_weightDisciplinary Record (20%)
Deductions based on verified disciplinary actions from bar associations and judicial conduct boards. Each public reprimand deducts 5 points, suspensions deduct 15 points, and disbarment/removal results in 0 score.
discipline_score = 100 - (reprimands * 5) - (suspensions * 15)Complaint Volume (15%)
Number of complaints filed relative to caseload/interactions. High complaint ratios reduce the score. Complaints that are dismissed or found without merit are excluded.
complaint_score = max(0, 100 - (valid_complaints / expected_baseline) * 50)Final Score Formula
trust_score = (base * 0.40) + (review_score * 0.25) + (discipline_score * 0.20) + (complaint_score * 0.15)Automatic Updates
Our data is automatically updated through scheduled cron jobs to ensure accuracy and freshness:
| Data Type | Update Frequency | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Judge Profiles | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | CourtListener API |
| Court Information | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | CourtListener API |
| Case Data | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | CourtListener API |
| Trust Score Recalculation | Daily at 9:00 AM EST | Internal Algorithm |
| News Feed (RSS) | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | Multiple RSS Sources |
| Blog Articles | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | AI-Generated |
| Press Releases | Daily at 8:00 AM EST | AI-Generated |
Our Commitment to Transparency
The John Adams Inquirer is committed to complete transparency in how we calculate and present our rankings. We believe that accountability in the judicial system requires accountability in how we report on it.
- All data sources are publicly accessible and verifiable
- Our ranking algorithm is fully documented on this page
- Updates are logged and timestamped for audit purposes
- Users can report inaccuracies through our contact form
- Institutions can respond to reviews and complaints