Talk:Fairchild v. Hughes

"Case"
Super technical here -- this is not a "case." Standing jurisprudence comes from the constitution referring to "cases and controversies." The courts can only decide those two things. If it is a case or a controversy, there is standing. Since there is no standing here, there is no case or controversy, and... ideally, this should not be described as a case.

Although I assume nobody anywhere cares. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing wrong with using a more correct wording... What word would be more precise? lawsuit? controversy? --2601:646:8D81:EEC:C963:26B2:22CC:AB55 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * PS: Please feel free to make the improvement to the article, I can't imagine it would be controversial, and WP:BRD is how we roll.  --2601:646:8D81:EEC:C963:26B2:22CC:AB55 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Problem
There's a problem with the second paragraph of the 'Background' section. It states Charles Evans Hughes acknowledged Tennessee's ratification of the 19th Amendment in August 1920. Hughes wasn't Secretary of State at this time; Bainbridge Colby was. Hughes became Secretary of State in March 1921, so it was he who was defendant in this case before the Supreme Court in 1922. Was this case previously Fairchild v Colby in the courts of the District of Columbia? The sources in the paragraph don't say. FieldOfWheat (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)