"I checked the Citizens Clean Elections Commission website this morning, and it says" such-and such a judge declared to an attorney representing the owner of that website. "Why isn't that clear evidence that" you should lose your case?

With that, the attorney's case, which was years in preparation, crumbled. Not because of a legal precedent found in a dusty law book, not because of forensic evidence pieced together in a criminal laboratory, not because of a brilliant cross-examination by a seasoned attorney, and not because of briefs submitted by $600-per-hour lawyers. A quick and easy internet search on the morning of the oral argument provided the "smoking gun" against his client.

The judge who checked the internet was none other than the Chief Justice of the United States: John G. Roberts Jr. He posed his question during oral argument on March 28, 2011, in a case challenging Arizona's campaign finance law. Arizona Free Enterprise Club v. Bennett and McComish v. Bennett. The disastrous admission on the State's website was that its campaign finance law was intended to "level the playing field," which is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. Government is not allowed to get into the business of trying to level the playing field of free speech, which in practice means censoring some speech.

Whatever happened to rules of evidence and limiting appellate review to what is in the record? The reality is that courts have always had recourse to publicly available material, and the Federal Rules of Evidence have long provided for reliance on traditional sources of information not immediately before the Court, such as articles and official notices.

The internet, of course, is different: what is there can be changed at any time, sometimes by anyone. The Supreme Court has not yet cited Wikipedia, an online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. But many hundreds of other courts have, some to rely on it and others to criticize reliance on it.

The U.S. Supreme Court is proceeding more cautiously than lower courts, often limiting its internet citations to government-run websites. But dissenting opinions have been more daring, citing non-governmental websites as desired.

The more contentious - and hence more important - an issue, the more likely Justices will bolster their divided opinions with internet citations. Justice Sam Alito wrote a passionate dissent against the holding that protesting military funerals constitutes protected First Amendment speech. Snyder v. Phelps, 131 S. Ct. 1207 (2011). Justice Alito peppered his stirring opinion with 15 citations to websites, along with full "http" internet addresses.