Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15

Category:United States Supreme Court justices by party

An editor has recently created this category scheme. We discussed it briefly on his talk page, from which I repost the thread below for wider input. postdlf (talk) 15:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a good idea. The office itself is legally nonpartisan, and we already categorize by the nominating president, whose political orientation the justices may satisfy or frustrate in their later jurisprudence. So this scheme can only be confusing if not misleading. postdlf (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's all very well documented by reliable sources. Even Black's Law Dictionary indicates the party of each justice in its Time Chart of the court. Presidents have appointed justices from parties different from their own, so it's not quite the same thing as categorizing by appointing president. I don't think it's any more confusing or misleading than categorizing senators of governors by party: the political stances of the parties have changed quite a bit over time, and politically, a Democrat from the 1850s is not the same as a Democrat from the 2010s. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't categorize by party, IMO. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me put another way, there are justices who were appointed by Republican presidents, there are justices who vote Republican, and there are justices whose decisions Republicans tend more to like. Any of those three may coincide in one justice. But there's no such thing as a "Republican Party United States Supreme Court justice". Senators are actually elected on a party's ticket and then caucus with party leadership, so the comparison is completely inapt. Another issue is that this is yet another potential scheme for ghettoizing SCOTUS justices if someone decides the parent category is "redundant" with the party one. postdlf (talk) 00:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I understand the nuances, but the sources do this division all of time. That doesn't mean it's a shorthand for figuring out what "kind" of justice the person was or who liked their decisions. It doesn't ghettoize because all the articles are left in the parent category, which is the normal practice of avoiding ghettoization concerns. We don't need to avoid subcategorization altogether to avoid ghettoization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
I've given it some thought. I wouldn't object to a nomination for deletion so that we can get broader input on this. (Of course, it doesn't matter whether or not I would object to a nomination, as it could be done regardless—but what I'm saying is that I think it would be useful to get other views on this, and if there is consensus that it is a bad categorization, I can go along with that and would understand why users would feel that way.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I've agreed with this being posted here and would appreciate some further input. I'll go with what consensus is on this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Against. I get what Good Ol’factory is saying, but on balance I think it's a bad idea. The key point is as Postdlf says: There is no such thing as this category is assigning. Just because some sources make this association doesn't mean we should. You could also create categories for Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff by party, but there is no such thing as that either. Party-based categories should be restricted to ones where it is an essential part of the position, such as running in a party primary or being elected on a party line or caucusing with a party once in office. Wasted Time R (talk) 01:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I see the nuances. Former President Taft had an unambiguous party. Justice Stevens' supposed Republicanism seems inconsequential, and the only mention we have of it is where he slyly declines to confirm he still belongs to that party. That said, that nuances are lost in a categorization scheme doesn't mean categories won't aid the reader, and there are enough intersections between law and politics to make me more interested in a Justice's party than I would be in J. K. Rowling's partisan identification. The other issue is, as Good Olfactory points out, whether we've got some reliable sources, and Black's clearly qualifies (I wonder what they say about Stevens?).

In the above spirit, I "wouldn't object" to a CFD. Some input from the regulars that grok (deeply understand) wiki's categorization scheme may help. But somebody who actually wants these deleted ought to make the nom. Since I'm pretty inactive, I'd request they link to or cross-post this discussion.--Chaser (talk) 02:01, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Black's lists Stevens as a Republican. (The only justice's party for which Black's is even someone ambiguous about is Brandeis: it lists him as a Republican, then in a footnote quotes Henry Abraham's statement: "Many—and with some justice—consider Brandeis a Democrat; however, he was in fact a registered Republican when nominated.") Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But that's to say that Stevens was a Republican, and also a U.S. Supreme Court justice. Not that he was a Republican U.S. Supreme Court justice. The problem is the intersection and what it wrongfully implies. postdlf (talk) 04:17, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the distinction is a terribly meaningful one, unless one is trying to parse something out of the phrase that's not there. If he was a Republican and a Supreme Court justice, it's probably fair to most observers to call him a Republican Supreme Court justice. (Indeed, the phrase "Republican Supreme Court justice" gets quite a number of g-hits. It's certainly not an obscure phrasing or a neologism.) I don't think stating that necessarily implies anything as to how he voted or wrote on the court. It just means he was one of the several Supreme Court justices that were registered Republicans. That said, I can understand how this is different than categorizing politicians who run as a member of a particular party and when elected caucus with other members of that party. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Postdlf again. This category makes it sound like the party is choosing and nominating them to the court. When really what the category should be called is something like Category:United States Supreme Court justices who had some kind of association with the Republican Party prior to being nominated. And when the semantics of a category are that weak, it doesn't really need to exist. Wasted Time R (talk) 09:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, that's one interpretation, but it's not how the designation is being used in sources that I see using them, anyway. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:56, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
But that's the designation you created in these categories. You have the party identification modifying or qualifying the position. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think the name of the category has to carry all the weight of the meaning associated with the category. Category pages frequently have explanatory text at the top of them. This seems like one where that would be a good idea.
I personally think that, as long as a reliable source, especially a highly reliable source like Black's, draws this line, it's acceptable -- and useful -- for Wikipedia to do so. TJRC (talk) 21:39, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that a category description can help in some cases, and would help in these. I disagree with the blanket position that if the semantics of a category are open to more than one interpretation—some of which could border on pushing the feature to insignificance—then that automatically means that the category doesn't need to exist. As stated, the chosen name doesn't always bear the entire weight of the categories value—sometimes names are selected to be reasonably brief rather than fully expository on the topic. This happens all the time. (And just to be clear, I didn't "create" the designations that were used—I adopted them from sources which use them.) But here, those who object to the category seem to me to be arguing that the category should not exist at all in any form, not that the category names need reworking. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Against. I agree with the statement that these categories should not exist at all... on Wikipedia. The media is free to refer to Roberts as a Republican Chief Justice, and people who read to the bottom of this talk page would understand the nuance, but I fear that a general audience would assume that this represented an official designation. I respect that Good Ol'factory is not the one making the distinction, but my view is that just because the media (including Black's) has assigned a party based on how a justice was appointed, how s/he voted in elections, or how s/he ruled from the bench, doesn't make it worthy of inclusion. Mjforbes666 (talk) 15:24, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment. I feel that there has been some good input on this above, and based on what has been said, I am happy to formally nominate the categories for deletion. I will link the CFD to this discussion, but those who commented here please feel free to comment again and lodge your "formal !vote" in the discussion. The discussion is HERE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Erica P. John Fund, Inc. v. Halliburton Co.

I corrected and updated several related entries. This item has been rated as a low priority but it is very important to Securities litigators. In the speciality, this is as important as Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International is to patent law--Lfrankblam (talk) 05:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Hall v. Florida

I would like to request someone with experience in this type of article to begin this one on a recent court decision about capital punishment. Rmhermen (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension / Ex parte Merryman

Hi!

You are invited to participate in an RfC on Lincoln's habeas corpus suspension (Talk:Abraham_Lincoln#habeas_corpus_section) pertaining to the section of the Lincoln article (Abraham_Lincoln#Beginning_of_the_war). I know this was not a Supreme Court case, but it is closely related (and featured the Chief Justice!)

We'd appreciate having some editors with legal interest joining the discussion!

Thanks.

Piledhighandeep (talk) 05:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Category name

Hello, I would like to know if I have named this category correctly. Specifically, should it be "by chief justice" or "by era" instead, or is this OK? (Frankly, I am confused because of the various names used here, here, and here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:33, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

While "by court" is accurate, I would prefer "by chief justice" as the term more likely to be understood by laymen. – Philosopher Let us reason together. 01:48, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Lambert v. Yellowley

I started an article on Lambert v. Yellowley earlier today. I just threw up the bare bones - I haven't even added refs yet. Anyone who wants to jump in would be welcomed! Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't added refs yet either, but I did add an infobox. Feel free to adjust the basics as you see fit! Bomberjacket5 (talk) 17:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that! Please do jump in elsewhere on the article if you have the time. Nwlaw63 (talk) 13:55, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Yates v. United States

I am planning to write a short article on Yates v. United States, decided today, opinion here. However, we already have an article Yates v. United States, discussing an unrelated case from 1957. How should we handle this? Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

  • I moved the prior one to Yates v. United States (1957). You can create the new one at Yates v. United States (2015). — Cirt (talk) 18:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Anyone else feel free to change my move please. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 18:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
  • I think it would've been fine to leave the older case at the undisambiguated title per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and just add a hatnote to the 2015 case. It's hard to imagine that a case about whether undersized fish are "tangible objects" within the meaning of a federal statute about impeding an investigation will ever be of equal prominence to a First Amendment case. postdlf (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
    • Yeah, upon thinking it over, I agree with Postdlf, would an admin please move the old page back to its original location? Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd personally prefer that in the case of needing disambiguation, we treat cases equally. So Yates v. United States could be a redirect to Yates v. United States (1957), while Yates v. United States (2015) would exist and we'd have either a cross-referential hatnote or there would be a disambiguation page (Yates v. United States (disambiguation)). --MZMcBride (talk) 01:14, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I'd support either method (leaning towards the disambiguation), as long as it results in an article getting written for the 2015 case; it's pretty interesting. I'll create a stub, at least, for the 2015 case, if I could get someone to expand on it once I've started it... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 23:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
...and my browser crashed while I was in the middle of writing it, meaning I lost all my progress... I give up, someone else can write it... Cooljeanius (talk) (contribs) 00:06, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. If possible, you may want to switch to a more modern Web browser. Newer versions of Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox should be able to crash without losing work (usually out of the box, but if not, with a plugin or extension). In any case, Yates v. United States (2015) now exists. :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:58, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Unless there's a third notable Yates case out there, I would think that WP:TWODABS applies. Remember, disambiguation pages are merely a midly inconvenient navigational tool, and one that is not needed if navigation can be accomplished in a hatnote. bd2412 T 20:01, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, in thinking about it again last evening, I came to the same conclusion. A hatnote is sufficient for now. I still personally think that Yates v. United States could easily live at Yates v. United States (1957) for consistency, but I understand and appreciate the "primary topic" argument. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

More substantively, as the person who opened this thread, I'm sorry I haven't gotten to this case yet. I hope to in the next couple of days. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Menominee Tribe v. United States nominated for TFA

Menominee Tribe v. United States has been nominated for Today's Featured Articles, if interested, please visit and register your support or opposition to the nomination. GregJackP Boomer! 17:45, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

Infobox handling of opinions that are of the Court only in part

Take a look at the opinion section in the infobox in Virginia v. Black. The complicated situation it's trying to address is, as the opinion syllabus describes:

"O'Connor, J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and Stevens, Scalia, and Breyer, JJ., joined, and an opinion with respect to Parts IV and V, in which Rehnquist, C. J, and Stevens and Breyer, JJ., joined."

The infobox is dealing with this by labeling the portion of O'Connor's opinion that did not command a majority as if it were a separate concurring opinion, which we cannot accept. There was obviously only one opinion delivered by O'Connor, not two separate opinions, nor did the Court itself label any portion of it "concurring" (and we always follow the Court's/justice's own designations, not our own sense of what an opinion is de facto). We need a way to handle this in the infobox that will be concise yet accurate. postdlf (talk) 22:52, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Primary topic?

United States v. Jones (2012) should be moved to United States v. Jones. This is indisputably the primary topic by this name, as it's a recent and major SCOTUS decision involving the applicability of the Fourth Amendment to GPS tracking of a suspect's vehicle. As United States v. Jones (disambiguation) shows, there is apparently only one other SCOTUS opinion with this short name, which doesn't even have an article and is from the 1890s, so is likely a historical footnote at best and can easily be dealt with in a hatnote (based on a quick read, it's merely about the per diem pay to which a Circuit Court commissioner was entitled). And would we even presume every opinion from this time period is notable?

Yes, this is the same issue as was raised in an earlier thread, but as I just came across this article I thought it would be an ideal test case for finally resolving this, and for demonstrating the undesirability of a rule that would automatically treat all SCOTUS opinions equally. postdlf (talk) 20:53, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

  • I disagree. United States v. Jones can refer to any of the eleven cases listed at the dab page, even though only two are currently visible due to the other cases being commented out by Josve05a ([1]). If it is our intent to complete articles on SCOTUS cases, we should leave it as it currently is rather than having to come back later and return it to its present state. GregJackP Boomer! 23:36, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
    • It never even occurred to me to look for commented out entries, nor do I understand why all but one redlink would be commented out. But I don't think that changes anything; we just have more than one completely obscure opinion of the same name (most from the 1890s), with the 2012 case as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. And recognizing that one of the cases is much more well known and important than the others doesn't in any way impede the project of making sure all have articles (but again, have we even decided that all 19th century opinions merit articles?). It just means the hatnote would be to the disambiguation page, not to any single (still nonexistent) article. postdlf (talk) 14:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • It didn't occur to me either—I did a WL search and was going to add the additional cases, but when I opened up the editing window, they were there, just commented out. Apparently there is a dab page policy that says only redlinks that are mentioned in an article somewhere else can be listed on a dab page. I don't necessarily disagree that the 2012 case is primary, I just haven't had time to look at the other cases and form an opinion. GregJackP Boomer! 15:13, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, United States v. Jones (2012) is certainly the PRIMARYTOPIC among those articles we actually have with the title United States v. Jones. If future articles are written and one of these 19th century cases turns out to be more important then we can revisit. I agree with Postdlf; preemptive disambiguation isn't helpful and isn't warranted here. Mackensen (talk) 15:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed U.S. Constitution WikiProject

Hi participants at WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases! I am posting a proposed WikiProject called United States Constitution. This project will focus on articles related to the original text of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights; it should include the articles on all 27 amendments, clauses, Supreme Court cases interpreting constitutional provisions, the drafters, and so forth. We can't get the proposed WikiProject without your help! Since you are in this group, I think you would also be interested in this WikiProject. We need 6-12 members to get the WikiProject active. Please join and support today. Please put your name in the "Support" tab here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/United States Constitution. Thank you! CookieMonster755 (talk) 20:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Some drafts.

I have thrown up some of my very brief law school briefs for the following titles, if anyone wants to work on them:

Cheers! bd2412 T 18:03, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed this. I am interested and will work on a few of these, though I may not be able to get to them right away. I recently had a case with some conflict-of-laws issues so the last couple in particular are fresh in my mind. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
I just noticed this as well. Many thanks to bd2412 for starting these. :-)
I'm strongly inclined to move all of these drafts into the article namespace and tag them as stubs. There's far too much work to be done to be handicapping ourselves by hiding our work in a separate namespace! --MZMcBride (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Color-coded term list tables

A question has been raised at Template talk:SCOTUS-termlist-entry on how we can make the color coded opinion tables in our term lists (such as 2014 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States) more WP:ACCESSIBLE. Your thoughts are welcome. postdlf (talk) 17:55, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Johnson v. United States (2015)

I made a bare-bones starter page for Johnson v. United States (2015). It isn't getting much attention since its (understandably) getting overshadowed by Obergefell v. Hodges, but it's a pretty big ruling in federal criminal law, so it would be great if we could get more stuff on there. Will work on it more tomorrow, but it's getting late where I am! Bomberjacket5 (talk) 05:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Nice! The page looks like a great start. I looked at this case very briefly yesterday and was trying to figure out what to do with Johnson v. United States, as that page had been moved without a redirect to Johnson v. United States (2000) in 2011. For now, I've made Johnson v. United States a redirect to Johnson v. United States (2015), but at some point we'll likely need a disambiguation page there as I imagine this case name is pretty common. --MZMcBride (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for that! And yes, a disambiguation page for "Johnson v. United States" will eventually be necessary. I did a bit more work on the page today, but it still needs much more. I highly encourage others to jump in. :) Bomberjacket5 (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Massive overhaul for Schmerber v. California

I recently conducted a massive expansion of the article for Schmerber v. California. By all accounts, it is a landmark case and a turning point in our nation's Fourth and Fifth amendment jurisprudence. Please let me know know if you have any suggestions for how I can improve the article. I have done extensive research on this case for many years, so I may be able to shed light on aspects of the article that are unclear. Over the next few days, I plan to return to the article to add more information to the "Subseunt developments" and "Analysis and commentary sections." This is definitely not a stub anymore, and will likely need to be reassessed at some point. Also, I nominated this for DYK. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

I also created an article for Breithaupt v. Abram, a major case interpreting the constitutionality of gathering evidence inside the human body. Let me know what you think of that one as well. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

What is the shortest Supreme Court opinion ever written?

It may be United States v. Barker, 15 U.S. 395 (1817), for which I just created an article. Justice Marhsall’s opinion weighs in at a whopping six words: “The United States never pay costs.” I found a Fifth Circuit case that describes the opinion as “One of the shortest opinions in the books,” but I would love to find a source that says, definitively, whether this is the shortest majority opinion ever written. I am sure Justices have written concurring and dissenting opinions that simply say “I concur” or “I dissent,” but I can’t imagine how you can write a majority opinion that is much shorter than this. If anyone knows of any sources that say if this is the shortest opinion ever written, please let me know -- Notecardforfree (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Black and Spriggs (Black, Ryan C.; Spriggs III, James F. (2008). "An Empirical Study of the Length of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions". Houston Law Review. 45 (3): 621, 660.) found "10 words in the shortest opinion," but they were only looking at opinions from the 1969-1985 terms; obviously that wouldn't include your 1817 case here. But you could always write them and see if they know or can point you to a reference. It's obviously a subject that interests them, and I don't know any attorney who doesn't enjoy a little unexpected attention arising out of one of his or her articles. TJRC (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, TJRC! I came across the Black and Spriggs article in my research, and I think I will take your advice and contact them directly. If I recall correctly, I think they also included per curiam opinions and other orders in their calculations, and I am sure there are many very brief orders that may count as "published opinions." The shortest signed opinion I've seen from the last sixty years is probably McLaughlin v. United States, a case where the Court held that unloaded guns qualify as "dangerous weapons" under federal bank robbery statutes. I'll be sure to let you know what I find out! -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
There have been plenty of cases (particularly before the mandatory jurisdiction was limited in 1988, but continuing through the present on occasion) in which the entire disposition reads, "The judgment is affirmed." But I'm not sure whether this is responsive to the query, only because these could be considered "orders" as opposed to "opinions." Newyorkbrad (talk) 03:13, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question for you all

According to GregJackP, this article In re Alappat follows "the general style used by WP:SCOTUS for case articles." I have worked on articles about SCOTUS cases, and I have not encountered one written with this little sourcing nor this much interpretation made in WP's voice (again, without sourcing). Is this indeed how you all do things here? I will be surprised if the answer is yes, as it means you all are interpreting WP content policies in interesting ways. But am interested to hear. Jytdog (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: This is both WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVAS. You need to keep the discussion in one place, and any notification of the discussion needs to be neutrally worded. GregJackP Boomer! 02:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
BTW, the article in question has the following sections: a background section, procedural history, the case opinion and dissent, and the aftermath; which generally follows our style guide. PraeceptorIP uses a law review/Bluebook style of footnoting, combining both reference citations and explanatory footnotes in one section instead of splitting it up like I typically do (see Ex parte Crow Dog as an example. The refs are to both secondary and primary sources as with any court case. Part of the problem is that Jytdog is not competent in the law review/Bluebook style. GregJackP Boomer! 02:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
As an uninvolved editor I've left a comment at Talk:In re Alappat. Regarding the law review/Bluebook style, should he be familiar with it? I write the occasional case article but like most editors I'm not a subject-matter expert and I didn't go to law school. Ex parte Crow Dog is what I would expect to see in a Wikipedia article. Mackensen (talk) 02:57, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Competence in the law review/Bluebook style is obviously not needed for the general reader, or for that matter, the general editor. However, if you are going to follow around a subject-matter expert, like Jytdog has done to PraeceptorIP, and criticize his editing it is absolutely necessary that you understand how to read the cites, how to read the opinions, and how to recognize WP:WEIGHT and WP:UNDUE. Jtydog has repeatedly criticized Praeceptor without a solid basis, and this has been borne out in numerous talkpage discussions. I did Ex parte Crow Dog in a more open manner, but there is nothing wrong with Praeceptor's style. GregJackP Boomer! 03:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
I've left a response at Talk:In re Alappat which addresses your comment here and there. Mackensen (talk) 03:41, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
  • thanks to those who commented here and at the article. Good to know that this project isn't a walled garden. Jytdog (talk) 12:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Should William Cushing be considered a Chief Justice?

Your comments are welcome at Talk:List of United States Supreme Court Justices by time in office#William Cushing as Chief Justice? postdlf (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ableman v. Booth needs special expansion attention

I think special attention needs to be addressed to the article Ableman v. Booth, specifically expansion of this article to include "the back-and-forth decisions of Wisconsin’s highest state court and the Supreme Court, over the power of a state court to order the release of an abolitionist, Sherman M. Booth, from federal custody on charges related to his role in arranging the freedom of a runway slave from Missouri." Because the ongoing issues related to Obergefell v. Hodges have now involved this case it is prudent to expand the article to be more clear as to what elements of this case the State of Alabama is relying on in its action. As the article is currently written it offers no insight into why this case might support Alabama's position, but instead offers only information that is diametrically opposed to the legal strategy that Alabama is now pursuing. Clueless Donald (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

  • What, specifically, are you trying to accomplish? Are you talking about the brief filed in Alabama ex rel. Ala. Pol'y Inst. v. King? If so, then we don't need to do anything to the article for a number of reasons. One, the position in the brief is ludicrous, and was specifically slapped down in Ableman and subsequent decisions. We don't need to change a Wikipedia article to support a frivolous argument in the same-sex marriage fight. Second, this more properly would belong in the Obergefell article, as a subsequent development worth maybe a sentence or two (if that). Finally, we follow what happens, but we are not a news source, nor should we be immediately changing articles in most cases, but should take a long-term view. GregJackP Boomer! 14:26, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Well, I simply took his comment to mean that our article on Ableman doesn't feature our best work but may soon attract attention (or it may not). We also don't have an article on Tarble's Case, which reconfirmed the outcome in Ableman but without the pro-slavery baggage. Mackensen (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm not in court today, if I get time I'll look at doing a stub on Tarble, unless you would prefer to do it. You could be right on his question, I read the brief before I read the SCOTUSblog link, so my view may have been biased. GregJackP Boomer! 15:22, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
There's a non-zero chance I'm hiking a mountain today. If I don't, I'll stub it out. Mackensen (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
I got bored so I stubbed it - hope you don't mind. If so, feel free to rewrite any and all of it. :D GregJackP Boomer! 20:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Or any of the redlinks at List of United States Supreme Court cases involving Indian tribes. GregJackP Boomer! 18:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
Yes! We should definitely prioritize those cases over Abelson. As I mentioned, Abelson has been cited only four times by courts of appeals, while United States v. Antelope has been cited 110 times by courts of appeals. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:43, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 69

Could someone have a look at the two bluelinked cases on this page please? Thanks. Debouch (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Fixed, I think. -- Visviva (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
Good show. Debouch (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at King v. Burwell

Anyone who has some time for some easy work, as I've noted at Talk:King v. Burwell#Quotes and cites to syllabus, our article at present inappropriately quotes and cites to the syllabus. These need to be replaced with actual quotes and cites from the Court's opinion. postdlf (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I only found two, towards the end and fixed them. GregJackP Boomer! 20:37, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the quotes also need to be better summarized rather than just dumped in the article, but that's a bigger problem for another day... postdlf (talk) 20:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree, but ACA is going to be contentious and I can find enough drama on my own. I'll probably pass on dealing with the cites to the actual opinion, although if you need a hand on something else, let me know. GregJackP Boomer! 21:54, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Bluebook

Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Law#Systemic_changes_of_citation_style_to_Bluebook Jytdog (talk) 20:37, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

  • I would encourage editors to participate in this discussion. GregJackP Boomer! 22:57, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:United States v. Wong Kim Ark

There is a discussion on whether 0.1% of the population not being citizens by birthright (American Indians) requires the removal of the phrase "practically everybody" from the lead of the article. GregJackP Boomer! 08:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

United States v. Washington Featured Article Candidate

United States v. Washington is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/United States v. Washington/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. GregJackP Boomer! 17:22, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Schmerber v. California Featured Article Candidate

Schmerber v. California is undergoing evaluation for possible promotion to Featured Article at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Schmerber v. California/archive1. Feel free to stop by and assist in assessing this article. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft class

I think Template:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases should be adjusted to include the Draft class. There's a few drafts hidden in Category:NA-Class U.S. Supreme Court articles which could be separately identified. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Supreme Court editathon on Friday Dec. 11

Wikimedia DC is planning to have an editathon on Friday, December 11 for content related to the Supreme Court. We'll be at the National Archives in Washington DC. We can scan and upload documents of particular interest for Wikisource/Commons, if we arrange it in advance. Your participation and commentary are welcome! For event details see the event page or user-talk to me. --econterms (talk) 16:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

@Econterms: Unfortunately, I can't be in Washington on that date, but I have some subject-matter expertise, so if I can be of any help from New York, please let me know. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Which template: scite or ussc ?

Examples:

fuxx (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

If the case has already been published in the U.S. reports, I would use {{ussc}}. If the case hasn't been published in the U.S. reports, I would consider (1) using no template (because there is no page in the U.S. reports to which you would provide a link), or alternatively, (2) manually include a link to the case's slip opinion (e.g. United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. ___ (2013). Of course, if you are citing specific pages from a slip opinion, please be sure to follow the Bluebook's rules for citing slip opinions. See, e.g., the citations at Reed v. Town of Gilbert, and please be sure to italicize case titles. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. It's problematic to include external links in the lead sentence. We generally try to avoid doing so. {{scite}} should be used, in my opinion. It will work with older and newer cases and it allows us to have some consistency so that we can update all U.S. Supreme Court case articles in the future, if we want to change the link or the formatting or whatever. --MZMcBride (talk) 23:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Chief Justices by age

FYI. postdlf (talk) 18:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that it wasn't tagged with this project so it won't pop up in the alerts. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:12, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Supreme Court Opinion Writing Database

I've just stumbled upon the Supreme Court Opinion Writing Database at Washington University, St. Louis, a site that hosts internal correspondence of the justices of the Burger court as they discuss how to handle particular cases before them. I found it while looking for something totally unrelated for the Giglio v. United States article, and thought that the back-and-forth memoranda on that case it was intriguing enough to add as an external link. Other editors may find it useful for other Burger-era cases.

I suspect it will be useful only as an external link. Any information that is derived solely from the internal correspondence, and not discussed elsewhere, is likely WP:OR. But it could be a valuable resource for those using Wikipedia to research a particular case, and will often make for a worthy EL. TJRC (talk) 22:28, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission appears to contradict itself. Gamebuster19901 (Talk | Contributions) 01:57, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

This is addressed now; potentially confusing text reworded to make it more clear. TJRC (talk) 22:59, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Seeking Feedback on Draft of Article on Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015)

I wrote up a draft of an article on Bank of America, N.A. v. Caulkett, 135 S. Ct. 1995 (2015), which can be found here. This is my first attempt at drafting an article for Wikipedia, and I'd very much appreciate some feedback on what I've written so far. I'd be happy to provide substantive and/or stylistic feedback on others' draft articles in exchange.

Thanks!

- Passerculus90 (talk) 22:35, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Passerculus90: Thanks so much for writing this article! I'll take a look later today. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

JoinMajority=unanimous

79.88.96.41 (talk · contribs) is modifying all articles on unanimous SCOTUS cases to use JoinMajority=unanimous in the template, resulting in the ungrammatical and ugly, e.g., "Rehnquist, joined by unanimous". I've started reverting, but there are too many for me to do, and I am due somewhere now. Any help would be appreciated. TJRC (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know about this. I think I reverted them all, though it's possible I missed one or two. I also left a message on the IP's talk page to explain the reversions. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 04:02, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi TJRC and Notecardforfree. Hmmm. I typically use |JoinMajority=''unanimous''. We could allow italicized ''unanimous'' in the same way we allow |JoinMajority=unanimously to be specified, where the latter drops the word "by" becoming "MajorityAuthor, joined unanimously". I agree with being consistent at least in the output, but we can catch some variants in the template input if we want to. --MZMcBride (talk) 16:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
MZMcBride and TJRC, I'm fine with any solution you think is appropriate, but I agree that there should be consistency. If there is a way to catch variants in the template input, all the better. Many thanks for your help making things run smoothly! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court

New category, Category:Tie votes of the United States Supreme Court, please help populate with historical cases.

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: I'm curious why you were applying it to term lists that merely happen to include tie cases as entries, such as this one. I don't think it belongs there any more than we'd categorize any list by a category that only applies to one or a few of its members rather than the list membership as a whole. postdlf (talk) 23:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 Done. I've removed the cat from the list pages. — Cirt (talk) 23:35, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Category:United States Supreme Court patent case law has been nominated for discussion

Category:United States Supreme Court patent case law, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for merging to Category:United States patent case law. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

If anyone wants a project...

I just came across Holland v. Florida, and it wasn't even recognizable as an article about a SCOTUS case. Needs a lot of expansion and an infobox. postdlf (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

I'll try to lend a hand. Thanks for the heads up! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:53, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Ambiguous case citations

Just noting a few ambiguous case citations here.

Scanning through <http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/datesofdecisions.pdf>, there are likely others. Some of these wiki pages are currently redirects and may need to be turned into disambiguation pages at some point. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting, MZMcBride. I'll have to double check this in the print version of the U.S. Reports, but I suspect that these early opinions are short enough that more than one opinion fits one a single page. I also like the idea of turning these ambiguous citations into disambiguation pages. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Nobelman v. American Savings Bank, 508 U.S. 324 (1993): Article Rewrite

I believe that this stub article should be TNT'd (WP:TNT) and rewritten from scratch. I'd be happy to do that, provided that there are no objections to my so doing. What is the typical procedure for going about such matters? Best, -- Passerculus90 (talk) 01:36, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Passerculus90. I'm not sure what needs to be blown up, but I'd strongly encourage being bold. If you would like to improve this article or any other, just click edit and go for it! :-) --MZMcBride (talk) 00:55, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Ah, I see now that you've worked on a draft at User:Passerculus90/Nobelman Draft. Drafting in your user space is perfectly fine, but also totally optional. Given how much work there is to do around here, I personally prefer that users edit live articles directly. Article drafts have a tendency to get lost or forgotten. Wikipedia and other wikis operate under Cunningham's Law, so you needn't be too worried about any errors or mistakes. Any and all good-faith contributions are welcome. --MZMcBride (talk) 01:01, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: Thanks for your message(s)! I appreciate your encouragement. Typically, I will edit live articles directly. Here, however, because I plan to scrap the existing article in its entirety, I'm uncomfortable putting up a half-written replacement article in its stead. My concern is not with errors, per se; I'm just reticent to "go live" with a half-written article. Once I've finished writing the replacement article, I'll then TNT the existing article and replace it with my complete replacement article all in one fell swoop. I'd planned to finish the replacement article earlier, but I've been slammed with work over the past couple weeks. Things have since let up, though, and I'm going to try to finish the replacement article in the next couple of weeks. Thanks again. -- Passerculus90 (talk) 00:08, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Scite

Template:Scite has been nominated for merging with Template:Ussc. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 04:13, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

PSA: {{scite}} now redirected to {{ussc}}

Per the discussion at TfD, {{scite}}, which was often used in the lead sentence, has been merged with {{ussc}} and now redirects to that template. It will still function the same, though |el=no should be added to suppress external links in prose. Wugapodes [thɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 19:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

All right. Thank you for this edit. I continue to wonder whether we should just stop using case citation templates altogether in the lead sentence. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:51, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

In older cases, are Justices considered to have implicitly joined the majority opinion? (Is it a majority opinion?)

Hi. So I probably should've asked this question a long time ago, but here we go.

For modern cases, such as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the end of the case syllabus includes a very helpful paragraph that specifically details how the Justices each voted in a case. For example, from <https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html>, we see:

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

However, my question is specifically about older cases, such as Tarble's Case. In older cases, there's often just a single opinion. Sometimes, as in this case, there appears to be a single dissenting opinion. I'm looking at <http://loc.heinonline.org/loc/Page?handle=hein.usreports/usrep80&id=417&collection=journals&index=usreportsloc#417>. In cases such as this, are the other sitting Justices of the Court considered to have joined the majority opinion unless noted otherwise? (Is Justice Field's opinion considered to be a majority opinion or just the opinion of the court?)

Put more directly, are edits such as Special:Diff/696522443/721378902 that add (the implied) |JoinMajority=Nelson, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, Strong, Bradley correct and proper? --MZMcBride (talk) 14:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

If memory serves, it was John Marshall who worked to end (or reform) the seriatim opinion practice, so some research relating to his practice may be helpful. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
@MZMcBride: My understanding is that at the time Tarble's case was published, it was generally assumed that a Justice joined the majority opinion unless the published opinion specifically stated that they did not do so. In this case, I think it is proper to say that Justices Nelson, Clifford, Swayne, Miller, Davis, Strong, and Bradley joined Justice Field's opinion. You may also be interested in this fascinating article, which discusses the evolution of "delivery practices" of SCOTUS opinions. @Alanscottwalker: I think this question has more to do with the editorial style of the United States Reports at the time than the Court's decision to abolish seriatim opinions. By 1814, seriatim opinions had "all but disappeared" and the practice was formally abolished in 1834, when the Court issued a rule that required opinions to be released in writing (see this article at p. 145 and this article at p. 551). Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Confirming the discussion here, a Justice who sat on the Court at the time a decision was handed down and did not expressly concur separately, dissent, or list himself or herself as not participating, may be taken as having joined the opinion of the Court (majority opinion). Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Radiolab mini-series "More Perfect"

Hi. Radiolab has a new mini-series related to the U.S. Supreme Court called More Perfect: <https://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolabmoreperfect/episodes/>. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion revisions

Something to be aware of, not sure how we can best address it... I've noticed this term that the Supreme Court has been publishing revisions to their opinions on their website after those opinions are announced. According to the NY Times story on this practice at www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/us/politics/supreme-court-opinion-edits.html, online mirrors such as Justia or Findlaw may not be updating the text. Really the opinions are not fixed until they are printed in the United States Reports, which is years later (the most recent bound volume is from the 2009 term). postdlf (talk) 14:48, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

@Postdlf: that is an excellent point! A few years ago, Richard Lazarus wrote a fascinating article about the longstanding practice of modifying opinions after their initial publication (i.e. modifications from slip opinions and the version in the Supreme Court Reporter prior to official publication in the United States Reports). When writing Wikipedia articles about SCOTUS cases, I will cite slip opinions when cases have not been published in the Supreme Court reports. However, I plan to go back through articles I've written to update the citations once the cases are published in the United States Reports. In general, this is certainly an issue that editors should keep in mind when working on articles about cases. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject United States - 50,000 Challenge

You are invited to participate in the 50,000 Challenge, aiming for 50,000 article improvements and creations for articles relating to the United States. This effort began on November 1, 2016 and to reach our goal, we will need editors like you to participate, expand, and create. See more here!

---Another Believer (Talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Williams v. Mississippi

By not bothering to mention whether the plaintiff was hanged due to this crass miscarriage of justice, this article is as disrespectful and oblivious of the plaintiff's constitutional and human rights as the Supreme Court.

In addition, this article is sorely missing a section on when the Supreme Court reversed the blatant disregard of the Constitution evident in this decision. --Espoo (talk) 06:02, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Espoo. Please be bold in updating the article! If you need any help, please let us know. --MZMcBride (talk) 05:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Article titles for cases by Court

Hi. We have article with titles such as List of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court. I wonder whether "by" should instead be "of"; for example, List of United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court. Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 05:36, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Two cases with same name in same year

Is there a standard for how to disambiguate in such a situation? Came across this on the disambiguation page Johnson v. United States. There are two cases with that name in 1948: 333 U.S. 10 (1948) and 333 U.S. 46 (1948). The first appears to be more significant (at least in terms of articles linking to it). At present both are redlinks and I disambiguated them as Johnson v. United States (1948 a) and Johnson v. United States (1948 b). Links to Johnson v. United States (1948) still need to be updated, but figured I'd wait to see if there is some other convention. older ≠ wiser 15:48, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

I came across the same issue with two Johnson v. California opinions handed down in 2005; I disambiguated them by what the case was about, Johnson v. California (AEDPA case) and Johnson v. California (jury selection case). If there are multiple cases by the same name about the same issue, then also add in the year. I think our goal should be not merely to make the titles different but to make that difference meaningful in same way too. postdlf (talk) 17:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases/Reports/E, we used the full case citation to disambiguate Erhardt v. Boaro. There are some spurious commas in those particular page titles before the parenthetical, but I thought this was our convention for name conflicts in the same year. I thought we used the full case citation for disambiguation elsewhere as well, but I'm not seeing other examples in the full list currently. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire

State of Vermont v. State of New Hampshire is a new and incomplete article. Michael Hardy (talk) 19:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Michael Hardy: Thanks for letting us know. Many of the articles about SCOTUS cases are "works in progress," but I'll see if I can add some content to that article over the next few weeks. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • My thanks as well. Please note that if we are using Bluebook conventions for case names, or alternatively the Supreme Court's own citation convention, then the article should be moved to Vermont v. New Hampshire, as "State of" is typically omitted in the short-form casename. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Supreme_Court_cases/Archive_12&oldid=1137361152"