Talk:United States v. Alvarez

Aftermath
The section should only have to do with the aftermath of the decision. It is irrelevant whether the name of the respondent redirects here. The article is about the Supreme Court decision, not him; that's an important distinction. Lord Roem (talk) 03:35, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the DA was prosecuting a case against Alvarez well before SCOTUS handed down the decision. Clarification is needed as to what he was initially charged with and by whom (US or State of California). Followup needs to parse out the Stolen Valor charges vice other charges.--S. Rich (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

"Judge Smith" dissent from denial of en banc rehearing confusion
A lot of problems with this passage about the Ninth Circuit's denial of rehearing en banc:


 * A rehearing en banc by the Ninth Circuit was denied over the dissent of seven judges. Judge Smith, one of the dissenters, argued that the panel "incorrectly rested its laurels on Supreme Court rulings in defamation cases that false facts did not receive First Amendment protections." Smith argued that this was not a defamation case, because even if the act was intended to prevent injury to military personnel, "the right against defamation belongs to natural persons, not to governmental institutions or symbols."

Given the context here, there are two Ninth circuit cases:
 * (the original 2010 three-judge panel appeal)


 * (the 2011 order, with concurring and dissenting opinions, denying rehearing en banc)

So here are all my points of confusion:
 * "Judge Smith" is not fully identified. His name should be given in full and wikilinked. (This is actually the I-thought-would-be-simple task I started out on, which led me down this rabbit-hole.)
 * But there were two Judges Smith on the Ninth Circuit at the time: Milan Smith and N. Randy Smith; and both were on this case.
 * Neither of the Judges Smith wrote a dissenting opinion in the denial:
 * Milan Smith is the judge in the original 2010 three-judge panel who wrote the opinion sought to be vacated. Unsurprisingly, he did not dissent from the decision not to overturn his own decision. In fact, he authored a concurrence in the 2011 rehearing decision that it should not be overturned. ("M. SMITH, Circuit Judge, with whom KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, joins, concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc".)
 * N. Randy Smith was among the judges who dissented from denial; but there is no dissenting opinion by him in the published case. He joined the dissent authored by Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain ("O'SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by GOULD, BYBEE, CALLAHAN, BEA, IKUTA, and N.R. SMITH, Circuit Judges, dissenting from the denial of rehearing en banc".)
 * The quote attributed to "Judge Smith" (presumably intended to mean N. Randy Smith, who did at least dissent, even if he didn't write an opinion) is "incorrectly rested its laurels on Supreme Court rulings in defamation cases that false facts did not receive First Amendment protections". But this text does not appear anywhere in the published en banc denial opinions (or for that matter, as far as I can find, anywhere apart from this Wikipedia article and mirrors of it).
 * The reference for that quote from a dissent is simply "638 F. 3d 666, 669 (2011)". But that page 669 isn't even in the dissent... It's in Milan Smith's concurrence (and as noted above, the quote doesn't appear there; unsurprising since that opinion is by Milan Smith, and (if true) the quote criticizes Milan Smith's 2010 opinion).
 * Then the paragraph goes on, seeming to continue this same Judge Smith's comments with the quote "the right against defamation belongs to natural persons, not to governmental institutions or symbols." But look at the cite here: it's to "617 F. 3d at 1205". That is the original 2010 decision, and in fact is the opinion by Milan Smith; and not the dissent that the article says it is.

I'm tagging this for clarification for now. Perhaps the best thing is to just cut the whole bit, but maybe someone can shed some light on the mysterious missing quote. TJRC (talk) 03:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I've cut the paragraph. TJRC (talk) 19:57, 2 March 2023 (UTC)