Talk:United States v. Texas (2016)

Comment
This entire content was, inappropriately, stuffed into Andrew S. Hanen, a Federal Judicial BLP article. I have boldly ripped it to this new location. Safiel (talk) 06:16, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

Major issues; must be rewritten entirely
While I'm sure that this article is the product of a lot of good-faith work, I believe it to be fundamentally flawed. It concerns itself with a litany of details that don't belong in an encyclopedic entry about a court case, and at the same time, it fails to clearly delineate the legal issues in the case. The article should open with a succinct summary of the relevant aspects of the immigration reform which gave rise to this litigation. It should then state the legal issues and give a concise overview of the litigation to date. Given the early stage of the litigation, I estimate that 2-3 medium-length paragraphs should suffice.

Also, the article is very clearly sympathetic with opponents of the President's immigration reform. For instance, in two places, it uses the politically charged term "amnesty" to describe the immigration reform. It also gives much more attention (however inelegantly) to opponents of the immigration reform. The sources reflect this bias; the article twice cites the Breitbart News Network, a very partisan source whose coverage of this case is listed in its 'Big Government' section. It also cites highly partisan news commentary in another non-neutral source, The Daily Signal.

I'm going to make a few edits to remove some of the most egregious instances of overdetail, sloppy writing, and biased presentation. But even with those changes, the article will still require a massive overhaul. Astro4686 (talk) 08:10, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I also spotted several sentences which were lifted almost verbatim from cited sources -- hence, the close paraphrasing tag. Astro4686 (talk) 08:37, 26 November 2015 (UTC)


 * After my most recent edits to the article, I no longer believe it to be overdetailed. Hence, I have removed the overdetail tag. As a general matter, I don't feel entirely comfortable deleting so much information from an article, and I would welcome feedback on whether my edits were too aggressive. Assuming that the community agrees with my changes, the most significant issue with the article is the lack of analysis of the legal issues. What were they, and why did the Court issue a preliminary injunction? Astro4686 (talk) 05:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Note regarding this section. The concerns that I expressed previously pertained to an old version of this article. It has since received a major overhaul, and the issues that I listed are no longer applicable. Astro4686 (talk) 19:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Striking pleadings
As this article notes Judge Hanen considered striking the pleadings of the government entirely but considered the constitutional issues important enough to go easy on the DOJ as striking the pleadings would lead the Supreme Court to only be able to judge the case based on one side's submissions. The text as written at present does not make it clear that the ethics classes is a lower penalty than normally would be applied in a case like this. Striking pleadings is about as radical a step as can be taken short of jailing DOJ attorneys. TMLutas (talk) 00:15, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Striking pleadings in the district court does not have an effect on the case, because appellate courts apply the law de novo and usually rely on the lower court record for determination of the facts of the case (unless the trial courts determination of facts was in plain error or was an abuse of discretion) - and therefore consider pleadings, especially motions practice, which were struck in the trial court. Therefore, what you're talking about is not of import when the supreme court takes up the case, so long as the issue is brought up in the Plaintiff's petition for a writ of cert. or Defendant's reply to the Plaintiff's petition for a writ cert. Thus, the apellate courts never hear the lower court's record in a manner that even comes close to ex parte proceedings. (i.e. appellate proceedings are never heard in anything resembling ex parte proceedings unless the trial court had Ex Parte jurisdiction). 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:41, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Odd locution
Scalia died before the case was decided; but what does it mean to, as the lede reads now, be "decided in front of...". We could say "argued in front of" or just plain "decided". "decided in front of..." seems odd, and I don't know which it is. "... Justice Antonin Scalia died before the case was decided in front of the Supreme Court, leaving only eight members to decide the case. ..."

— 02:59, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Issues with case Name November 2021
We have a problem in that there is another case captioned United States v. Texas in the supreme court argued and submitted in the recent (October 2021) term, having to do with further interpretation of Ex Parte Young. While the case citation in the U.S. reporter would usually distinguish the case, I am of the opinion we need to make a distinguishment here in the hat notes in advance for the article that will be written, given that this is likely to be a decision of major import to procedural law with respect to Ex Parte Young and 42 U.S.C. 1983 proceedings. However, I'm at a loss of how to approach this for the time being due to not knowing what the citation will be for the newer case. 98.178.191.34 (talk) 20:34, 18 November 2021 (UTC)