Prolific Hoffer (history, Univ. of Georgia; The Radical Advocacy of Wendell Phillips) reviews the footnotes of eight U.S. Supreme Court decisions, from Chisholm v. George (1793) to Dobbs v. Jackson (2022). Some readers may find it difficult to understand a few of the cases due to the way lesser-known Supreme Court cases, especially 19th-century ones, are referenced. His book explores how history and footnotes are utilized in judicial decisions. It also shows how footnotes have evolved from simple empirical support of the decisions’ arguments to acerbic exchanges between justices about the facts and law. Lower courts, scholars, litigants, and lay people, he observes, closely scrutinize footnotes for clues about what individual justices are thinking. They also serve as hints for the future direction of the Court. Hoffer argues that when judges use history to support their decisions, they must also fully research each citation of a historical event and consider it in the context of its era, especially in the often-changing interpretations of history. With that in mind, he criticizes Justices Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alito. VERDICT Readers interested in the U.S. Supreme Court and its history, the legal system, and contemporary America will enjoy this book.