"(Cleaned Up)" Parenthetical Arrives in the Supreme Court

It's in Justice Thomas's unanimous opinion in Brownback v. King, decided two weeks ago. It has already become popular in lower courts (114 citations just in the last 11 days, from Mar. 1 to Mar. 11), even though it was apparently proposed only in 2017 by appellate lawyer Jack Metzler (@SCOTUSPlaces); that's lightning-fast by legal standards.

Here's my post about the parenthetical from 2018, which explains what it's all about:

[* * *]

A recent Eighth Circuit decision contains this passage:

The first Gingles precondition requires that "the racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district." LULAC, 548 U.S. at 425, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (cleaned up).

Here is what the original passage from the cited decision says:

The Court has identified three threshold conditions for establishing a § 2 violation: (1) the racial group is " ' "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district" ' "; (2) the racial group is " ' "politically cohesive" ' "; and (3) the majority " ' "vot[es] sufficiently as a bloc to enable it … usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." ' " Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1006–1007, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994) (quoting Growe, 507 U.S., at 40, 113 S.Ct. 1075 (in turn quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50–51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986))). These are the so-called Gingles requirements.

Normally, without the "(cleaned up)," the Eighth Circuit decision would have quoted this as either:

The first Gingles precondition requires that "the racial group is "'"sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district."'"" LULAC, 548 U.S. at 425, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1006–1007, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994) (quoting Growe, 507 U.S., at 40, 113 S.Ct. 1075 (in turn quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50–51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986))))

or, better, as:

The first Gingles precondition requires that "the racial group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district." LULAC, 548 U.S. at 425, 126 S.Ct. 2594 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

But "cleaned up" basically means "internal quotation marks, brackets, ellipses, and citations omitted"—the original LULAC passage might thus have been written as:

The Court has identified three threshold conditions for establishing a § 2 violation: (1) the racial group is "sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority in a single-member district"; (2) the racial group is "politically cohesive"; and (3) the majority "votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it usually to defeat the minority's preferred candidate." Johnson v. De Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1006–1007, 114 S.Ct. 2647, 129 L.Ed.2d 775 (1994) (cleaned up) (indirectly quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50–51, 106 S.Ct. 2752, 92 L.Ed.2d 25 (1986)). These are the so-called Gingles requirements.

(The "indirectly quoting" parenthetical is included just to make clear to the reader why they are the so-called Gingles requirements; if this didn't have to be explained in context, the "indirectly quoting" could be dropped.)

I like "cleaned up," because it helps focus readers on the important thing—the substance of the quoted text—without distracting them with the unimportant. But, more importantly, many courts seem to like it…. A Utah Court of Appeals opinion, for instance, explains it thus:

The parenthetical "cleaned up," while perhaps unfamiliar, is being used with increasing frequency to indicate that internal quotation marks, alterations, and/or citations have been omitted from a quotation. For an example of its use in a published opinion, see United States v. Reyes, 866 F.3d 316, 321 (5th Cir. 2017).

And many cases use it without explaining, which is a sign of its acceptance. I'll use it from now on when filing briefs in courts that regularly use it, and will likely use it even in courts that don't regularly use it, though there I'll add a footnote explaining it and citing authoritative courts that have used it (as in the Utah opinion I just quoted). I'll also use it in law review articles, and if law review editors complain, I'll cite the D.C. Circuit at them.

To be sure, there is a risk that "cleaned up" may be used to sweep some complexities under the rug, and may sometimes be used outright dishonestly. But that's a possibility for any alteration, especially brackets and ellipses (and for that matter the decision when to start and end quoted text). Authors know that the reader may well check the original source, and will spot such misuses; that should be deterrent enough to such a misuse.