Talk:United Public Workers v. Mitchell

Who won?
I may have my stupid head on today, but it is not clear to me what the outcome was. The sentence "the Court decided in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, that a group of federal workers could not block enforcement of a law that created only the possibility of a threat to Ninth Amendment rights" is something more than delphic. --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That's fixed now. - Tim1965 (talk) 04:09, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Who was Mitchell? Again, and still with stupid head on, I can see the article discusses the background and the decision; but it does not appear to me specify what (presumably) the United Public Workers were suing Mitchell for. And we know from the decision that there were multiple appellants, but get no hint of that earlier. So, probably, still some more work to do. Thanks. --Tagishsimon (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Some minor bureaucrat they had to sue to get their case going. If Mitchell were notable, he or she would be mentioned. (Mitchell is not even mentioned in the Court's decision, except as defendant. That's quite common in legal decisions.) The second paragraph of the Background section quite clearly states what the union was suing for: "Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional." - Tim1965 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I missed that. I think "who was Mitchell" is a question that will occur to others, and so something that might be covered. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:35, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Go look it up, then. It would be good for you to contribute to the article. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)