Talk:Garland v. Cargill

Avoid using the decision text directly
I have tried to put all your updates or substantially equivalent parts of those back in the article after the first major revert. Your edits added a lot of material sourced directly to the decision or other cases directly, which we should not do because determining the substantial aspects of a decision is original research that we cannot do - we are not considered legal experts (even if outside Wikipedia we may have this skill) We should be using third-party sources (in this case like Reason) to help identify how the case is broken down and decided. In the case of the explanation Thomas gave, Reason gives a good high level overview of this on multiple points, which I believe covered what you had added but directly from the case text. And here, quoting Thomas' decision is better than paraphrasing due to the complexities of his points. — M asem (t) 14:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)