Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court made news twice with her six-page dissent to a court order allowing Texas to implement a restrictive voter identification law that a lower federal court found racially discriminatory.

The first time the justice made news by releasing her fiery dissent at 5 a.m. on a Saturday morning after having worked on it throughout the night. The second time was when she corrected a minor error in her opinion (which I had flagged on the Election Law Blog) and announced through the Supreme Court’s press office that she had made such a change.

Justices commonly correct and change opinions after release. But Ginsburg’s announcement of a correction was so rare that The National Law Journal, The New York Times and National Public Radioran stories about it. For the most part, as New York Times reporter Adam Liptak has detailed, the court simply makes changes to published opinions with no announcement, sometimes months or years after the original publication.

The Supreme Court has no excuse for being so opaque about its practices. There is a whole set of ways that it could improve on its transparency.