Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by GrahamColm 13:11, 9 June 2012.

Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

 * Nominator(s): Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to nominate this article for FA-status. It has gone through two peer reviews, a great deal of informal peer discussions, and a recent copyedit. The subject matter spans an important subset of First Amendment law, one that I hope this review process will only help expand. Best regards, Lord Roem (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments Alright, first things first: this will be my first time having reviewed an article, so I know there will be things I missed.
 * Maybe it's just me, but should court be capitalized in the following instances:
 * In the Lead section: "The Court ruled that this specific restriction violated ..."
 * In the Supreme Court decision section: "The Court affirmed the decision ..."
 * Not relevant, as Lord Roem describes below. L1ght5h0w (talk) 21:51, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Reaction
 * 1. In the sentence: "... stating that while they were glad the restriction fell "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks" Could this be improved by adding two commas: "... stating that, while they were glad the restriction fell, "[the decision] opens the LSC up to even more attacks"?
 * Subsequent developments
 * 2. The following sentence confused me a bit: "Since the Court struck down the limitation LSC has engaged in welfare-reform litigation, due to the injunction preventing enforcement of the restriction (which was entered by the District Court)." Did the court strike down the limitation LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation? Or has LSC engaged in welfare-reform litigation because the court struck down the limitation? If I am right, a comma might help clarify: "Since the court struck down the limitation, LSC has engaged in ..." If not, is there are better way of saying it so it is a little easier to understand?
 * Analysis and commentary
 * 3. In this sentence: "... Justice Kennedy's analysis renders the opinion "uncredible" (sic) and "unconvincing." " Could/Should it be changed to: "... renders the opinion "uncredible [sic] " and "unconvincing." "
 * Miscellaneous
 * I found a few instances of duplicate links.
 * This last bit I don't believe is extremely important, but there are several links that are redirects.

Like I said, my first time reviewing an article, and I know I probably missed some stuff, but, hey, that is part of learning. L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, thought you might want to know that the website the first reference links to ("Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, Carmen, et al./U.S. v. Velazquez") is "off-line" at the moment (as of 8:24am PST, 8 May 2012). L1ght5h0w (talk) 15:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi! I'll work through these suggestions later today. Quick question though: you mention in #6 that there are several 'redirects'. I'm having trouble seeing what you're describing. Could could be specific please? Thanks, Lord Roem (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, some of the links on the page are redirected to...well...I'll give you a few examples:
 * [What you link to] => [The actual article]
 * Legal Services Corporation Act => Legal Services Corporation
 * Public fourm => Forum (legal)
 * Law journal => Law review
 * Indigent => Poverty
 * I'm sure you know how to fix it, but just to clarify, you put, for one example, indigent and it could be indigent . Like I said, not really something extremely important, but it makes it look nicer, IMO, if when you follow a link to another article, it doesn't have the "(Redirected from [article linked])" on the article's page. And, obviously, do to fix this, you can avoid a "redirect" to the article using piping. Sorry if that is difficult to understand, and if it is, please know it's my fault, not yours (it is my way of wording it, and sometimes I can be pretty vague). L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, and happy to help! =) L1ght5h0w (talk) 16:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Lightshow! I've worked through all your suggestions for the article. Only thing I didn't do is the change of "Court". The proper way to refer to the Supreme Court is "the Court held" or "the decision of the Court" (for example [|see this Supreme Court featured-article]).
 * If you think I've resolved your concerns, if you could strike through it or put a "collapsetop/collapsebottom" box around it, that would be great. That way, other editors and reviewers know that I've worked through the suggestions. Thanks again! Lord Roem (talk) 18:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good from what I saw when I first reviewed it. Sorry it took me two days to add collapse boxes/strike throughs. Nice work! L1ght5h0w (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments I enjoyed reading this article (and the case). Here are some suggestions:
 * "funding restrictions" That sounds like restrictions on who can receive funds, but the restriction is that lawyers working for entities that receive the funds are restricted in what types of cases they can represent.  Needs clarification
 * "private speech&mdash;that of its clients"  Do you mean grantees?  Using the word clients makes it sound like the attorney's client's speech but the Court's decision is based on the attorney's ability to speak freely (bring certain cases).  This needs to be clarified.
 * "created a public forum" What public forum did it create?  I know I saw "existing medium of exchange" in the opinion.
 * "government's ability to regulate speech is highly limited" - The government's ability to regulate speech is always highly limited - needs clarification.
 * "Because the restrictions excluded attempts to affect only a certain type of law" - cumbersome wording
 * "In academia there were more were critical responses to the Court's holding. Do you mean there were more critical responses than favorable responses?  If so, make clear and source.
 * indigent defendants should be clients
 * the act, the Act, the LSC Act - needs to be consistent throughout article
 * "Velasquez retained" Since she didn't pay, I don't think this is the best word.
 * "a provision of the LSC Act" Since there's really only one provision of the Act that's at issue here I think "the provision of the LSC Act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law" would be better.
 * In the "Lower-court proceedings" section you use "welfare advocacy" and elsewhere it's "welfare reform", should be consistent throughout article.
 * A couple of times you say the government was trying to. This doesn't sound professional, "attempting" or "its purpose was" would be better.
 * Somewhere there should be a clarification of what types of welfare cases an attorney working for an LSC grantee could represent and what that attorney could not represent.
 * "Supreme Court decision" section is very short. I think it needs considerable expansion to clarify the Court's reasoning.  In particular explain governmental speech, private speech, "distortion", impermissible viewpoint discrimination -- what these are and how they relate to this case.  Now they're just mentioned, they  need a more thorough explanation.
 * I think the article would benefit from subsections giving brief descriptions of Rust and Rosenberger, specifically why the restriction in Rust was permissible (very unclear now) and why Rosenberger was impermissible.  Blue  Bonnet  20:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've been working through your suggestions. I'm down to the last three points you have, each about expanding the article, which will take a tad more time than the other fixes I'll get to those expansions over the weekend. Thanks for the review! I appreciate the help in improving the article. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Completely finished I believe. I've expanded the article's discussion of Rust and Rosenberger. -- Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments
 * Completeness of lead (read nothing else): The lead talks about Legal Services Corp, but what about Velazquez? -- Redtigerxyz Talk 17:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Lord Roem (talk) 01:02, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk)
 * I've been through BlueBonnet's points ... very solid work. I made a couple of tweaks.  It looks like you've responded to all those points, except for the last three, which ask for expansion. Those all seem reasonable, although maybe no one knows exactly which types of welfare cases were covered.
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 23:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Support Comments from Noleander
 * Split into two: "The restrictions affected only a small portion of the caseload; however, they prohibited the LSC from using its funds for actions: ... initiating legal representation or participating in any other ..." - Those are two key concepts.  The latter needs a dedicated sentence as in "One of the restrictions prohibited funding cases that ...".
 * Wording: also in the above: "small portion of the caseload; however, .." - The latter clause is not the opposite of the former, so "however" is not correct.
 * Would this work? "The restrictions affected a small but crucial portion of the caseload,[2] prohibiting the LSC from using its funds for actions: ..." - Dank (push to talk) 23:59, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What I was driving at was that there are two distinct thoughts there: (a) the several restrictions, together, were actually relatively minor and impacted only a small portion of the LSCs workload; and (b) one of the restrictions dealt with Welfare, and that one was the subject of this SCOTUS case. I think those should be in 2 separate sentences (and the "however" will naturally disappear).   --Noleander (talk) 00:09, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

End Noleander comments.
 * Cite needed: " ... and sought to challenge the provisions of TANF under which Velazquez lost her benefits. The district court denied an injunction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
 * Cite needed: "The national LSC asked the Supreme Court for review by petitioning for a writ of certiorari, arguing that the Second Circuit was wrong in striking down the welfare-advocacy restriction." - has no footnote & is at end of paragraph.
 * Cite needed: "The Court affirmed the decision of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, deciding that the restriction on pursuing welfare advocacy was unconstitutional under the First Amendment by a vote of 5–4."
 * Cite needed: "With this in mind, he concluded with a process by which the Court should have decided the case: a process leading to the upholding of the restriction by finding that LSC's purpose was in promoting the government's message, in contrast to a diversity of private views."
 * Cite needed: " Notwithstanding the difficulty of an organization to classify itself as an "affiliate entity" of LSC, Gozdor argued that there was no real prevention of speech when there were ample alternative means of relaying the message."
 * Clarify direction: "... could undermine abortion law " - Undermine in which way? Increase restriction on a.?  Or reduce legal restrictions?
 * Mention Rosenberger v. Rector - That case is listed in "See also"; if it is in any way relevant, it should be mentioned in the body of the article.
 * Subsequent cases? - Has the Supr Court relied on this case in any subsequent cases? If so, mention them.
 * Wording: "Moreover, attacking the distortion principle's application, Gozdor also argued ..." - I think many editors will agree that "moreover" is never a good word to use. Reword.
 * Holding should be standalone: "Because the LSC facilitates private speech, the government speech doctrine does not apply and the speech restriction is therefore unconstitutionally viewpoint-based." - I know it is hard to summarize a whole case in 1 or 2 sentences; but here "the speech restriction" makes no sense because a restriction has not yet been mentioned before. Maybe something like:  "A federal law which prohibited the LSC from engaging in welfare-law related cases violates the 1st amend freedom of speech because such advocacy by the LSC is private speech and thus not subject to the govmt speech doctrine". Or something like that.
 * Wording: "Supporters of the ruling were cautiously optimistic, ..." - The phrase "cautiously optimistic" is hackneyed.  Recommend reword.
 * Was this case mentioned in the NY Times or any other general-audience media? If so, it would be worthwhile to present their take on it.
 * Easter egg link: Link "own message" leads to article Rust v. Sullivan which is probably not consistent with WP:LINK guidance.
 * Be specific: "The immediate reaction was mixed, especially among members of Congress." - Reword as "The immediate reaction was mixed among members of Congress." - unless you are going to identify who else had a reaction. The general public?
 * Reword: - "Parties involved in the case also had mixed reactions...." - It then gives two responses; but (1) it looks like both responses are from the same side; and (2) the responses both appear to be supportive of the decision - so Im not sure "mixed" is correct here.
 * Tense: "The implications of these subsequent rulings mandate two new rules" - That is a shift to present tense, and seems wrong.
 * Overall, a fine article. Not a spectacular topc, but it is on a narrow, focused topic, so one cannot expect to see lots of illustrations and celebrities.  Leaning to Support once the above are addressed.
 * I believe I've addressed all the issues you've raised. If you have any questions about my changes or more suggestions, please feel free to let me know. Thanks for the thorough review! :-) - Lord Roem (talk) 20:53, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing to Support based on recent improvements. --Noleander (talk) 01:30, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Does not meet criteria 1(a) or (b) - writing is confusing and imprecise, difficult legal concepts that many readers will be seeing for the first time are not adequately explained, lacks complete and clear description of the parties involved, insufficient description of the Court's evaluation of the problems caused by the restriction, insufficient description of how the Court applied legal principles to reach its decision, contains factual inaccuracies. Also the article is unbalanced, leaning toward criticism of the majority opinion. The discussion of the majority opinion is short and does not adequately explain the Court's reasoning whereas the "Analysis and commentary" section contains only criticism and is much longer.

Additional comments Blue Bonnet   20:42, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The case was brought by Carmen Velazquez" - not accurate - "Lawyers employed by the New York City LSC grantees, together with private LSC contributors, LSC indigent clients, and various state and local public officials whose governments contribute to LSC grantees, brought suit..." (quote from the Court decision)
 * "whose LSC-funded attorneys sought to challenge existing welfare provisions" - inaccurate "...brought suit ...to declare the restriction...invalid." (quote from the Court decision)
 * Some of the points you raise are fair, but these first two I think are invalid. She was trying to challenge the welfare restrictions, but could not so so because of the restriction. I think the wording of the lead sentence then is accurate. Additionally, while her lawyers were the ones who brought the case technically, its in their client's name. Hence the reason its called LSC v. Velazquez. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:38, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This lawsuit is to challenge the restriction within the LSC Act, it is not to challenge a provision of welfare law. Challenging the welfare law would come  in a different lawsuit against whatever government department denied welfare benefits.  The Court states who filed suit.  It's LSC v. Velazquez et al..  Current description of parties and suit is inaccurate.  Blue  Bonnet   21:27, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The nature of how LSC funds are distributed" - what does how they're distributed have to do with anything? This is in the intro and I don't see an explanation later in the article.
 * "created a public forum" - What public forum does the LSC create? I thought the forum was the court system.  The LSC didn't create that.
 * "Reactions to the decision were mixed within Congress, with Republicans and Democrats disagreeing on the propriety of the decision." This is in the intro but I don't see anything later in the article about any Democrat having an opinion on the matter.  Which source supports a Republican/Democrat split over the opinion.
 * Fixed/done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to the Greenhouse article the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction - that is significant and needs to be mentioned.
 * The Clinton administration/LSC is the same thing. It was a suit against the government, so to say the Clinton administration intervened is not technically accurate and thus should not be included. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The LSC is a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation established by Congress, it is not the government. Do you have a source that contradicts the Greenhouse article?  There needs to be a full and accurate description of parties.  And now the article gives the impression that Republicans were for the restrictions, Democrats were against it - inaccurate if the Clinton administration intervened in support of the restriction as the New York Times article states. Blue  Bonnet   21:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see the point of discussing Rust and Rosenberger in a "History..." section. The Court discusses these cases in its opinion so they can be discussed in the "Supreme Court decision" section.  Still needs a more thorough explanation of how the principles in those cases relate to Velasquez and how the Court distinguishes Rust from Velasquez.
 * I think the History section is the appropriate place to put it. Please refer to the only SCOTUS article that is an FA here. It uses the background of prior case law in a similar 'history' section. That's my reference point. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Needs clarification that "specific relief" means suits for benefits and that such suits were OK under LSC Act so long as there was no challenge to existing welfare law
 * Any help on how I could phrase that/where I could put it? -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Bronx Legal Services filed suit" - inconsistent with intro which says Velasquez brought suit
 * Done. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You changed it to: "Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velazquez, filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York seeking a declaration that the provision of the act prohibiting challenges to existing welfare law was unconstitutional under the First Amendment.[4] " and you cite to the case. Please quote the language from the case that says Bronx Legal Services, on behalf of Velasquez, filed suit.  I think this is wrong and that, if anything, Bronx Legal Services was a co-respondent with Velasquez and the others. Blue  Bonnet   21:45, 24 May 2012 (UTC) (I did a quick online search and found where it looks like Bronx Legal Aid represented Ms. Velasquez after she lost benefits and attempted to challenge welfare law but the attorney was barred from representing her and she lost her benefits - that was a different case.  That's not this case.) Blue  Bonnet   22:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the article gives the impression that Ms. Velasquez filed suit to get benefits and this case proceeded from that lawsuit, but that is not what happened - needs clarification.
 * Why doesn't "It argued that there was no way to help Velazquez without challenging the welfare system itself..." solve that issue? -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And then it says they sought to challenge TANF and then says they couldn't - very muddled. Blue Bonnet   21:50, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The majority reasoned...[that] the purpose of the act was to promote a diversity of private views with its funding; not an attempt to restrict any views" - I'm confused, I thought the Act clearly restricted LSC attorneys from asserting the view that existing welfare law was unconstitutional
 * Exactly. In context, the sentence you refer to is specifically about Rust. Its explaining why in that case, the Court thought the gov't restriction was fine. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Does "the act" in the language I quoted above not refer to the LSC Act? If not, what Act does it refer to?  Needs clarification. Blue  Bonnet   21:56, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Court said that the government can only issue "content-neutral" conditions on such speech, and that the specific prohibition on welfare-reform litigation was viewpoint-based" - sounds contradictory to what was just said - that it was "not an attempt to restrict any views"
 * See above. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "the Court also attacked the fact" - sounds weird, poor wording
 * Fixed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Court also attacked the fact that the restriction functionally barred attorneys from participating in the courts." - The restriction did not functionally bar attorneys from participating in courts. That is way too broad and I'm pretty sure the Court didn't say that.  I also don't see support for this statement in the source that is cited (Greenhouse article).
 * Changed the source. Checked the opinion itself and it does say it. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I read page 547 and didn't see it. Please quote the language you're relying on for that statement.  Blue  Bonnet   22:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * "Any attorney receiving LSC funding would not be able to litigate welfare claims" - Inaccurate - they could litigate claims for welfare benefits so long as they didn't challenge existing welfare law
 * You're right. Fixed. -- Lord Roem (talk) 17:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Need more accurate and more thorough description of the Court's discussion of problems the restriction caused in the functioning of the court system
 * Need explanation of how "distortion principle" came from majority opinion
 * If the "Analysis and commentary" section is only going to contain criticism (as it currently does) then it needs to be re-named to something like "Criticism"
 * The most notable critic of the opinion is Scalia, yet the Dissent gets a tiny paragraph and several less notable critics get much more space (they also get more space than the discussion of the majority opinion) - that doesn't make sense to me.
 * To the extent that the critics in the "Analysis and commentary" section are repeating what Scalia said, that criticism needs to be in the Dissent section so that it is clear that Scalia first made the point
 * "Taking the Velazquez rationale to its logical ends", he wrote, "the LSC subsidy itself could become an unconstitutional speech restriction. If Congress substantially increased LSC appropriations in order to allow LSC to take all of its cases ... the functioning of the legal system would be distorted because such a subsidy likely would result in a dramatic increase in the federal courts' caseloads." - How would a dramatic increase in the federal courts caseloads be an unconstitutional speech restriction? This doesn't make sense to me and is not adequately explained.
 * "Because Velazquez "blurred" this distinction, the privileged nature of doctor–patient conversations could be subjected to future regulations and limitations." - But Velasquez struck down restrictions, why would it be used as a basis for regulation and limitation in doctor-patient conversations? Sharpe's article was written in 2002, has Velasquez been used in such a way in the last 10 years?  If not, why is this even relevant?


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.