In this article, Professor Leslie Gielow Jacobs asserts that the Supreme Court, by becoming mired in a formalistic mode of reporting decisions, has sacrificed the legitimacy of its interpretive process. She argues that this sacrifice stems from contemporary Supreme Court opinions' failure to acknowledge alternatives and value judgments that inevitably are a part of decision making. She explores several recent decisions by the Court, noting the detrimental impact of formalism in each. Professor Jacobs then suggests a new method of reporting, defining, and structuring its components into a method which can recreate legitimacy in the interpretive process.