Talk:List of landmark court decisions in the United States
|This page was nominated for deletion on 3 July 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.|
|WikiProject United States||(Rated List-class, Low-importance)|
|WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases||(Rated List-class, High-importance)|
You should strongly consider adding Gitlow v. N.Y. (1925). The 1st case in in which the Court utilized the 14th Amendment to nationalize the Bill of Rights. Basically set the table for the activism of the past 60 years. Hshudgins (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
This article requires careful review. In a few cases the summaries mischaracterized the decisions. For example, U.S. v. Lopez was described as a federalism case prohibiting federal interference with local school operations, whereas in fact it was a commerce clause case with nothing to do with state or local government. Each case should be reviewed carefully. Best, --Shirahadasha 06:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Slaughter- House Cases
The Slaughter-House Cases should be included in landmark decisions. Argueably one of the most pivotal cases in the late 19th century limiting the impact of the 14gth ammendment. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that this case ought to be added to the list of federalism cases, as it set an extremely wide boundary on Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. chrylis (talk) 05:03, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
i forget which case it was but there was something about the Klan right to march in some town in Il (if memory serves) and the ACLU (and a jewish lawyer) took up their case which they won. There was another case they had vs. San Antonio where they won the right to march but the city closed the 2 roads besides it so no one would be at their march to preserve the peace. Pretty cases on free expression these 2.Lihaas (talk) 08:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Reversion of Perry v. Schwarzenegger
Perry v. Schwarzenegger is not yet a landmark case. First, it was cited as 591 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2010), which is incorrect. That cite goes to the 9th Cir. mandamus hearing on a protective order in the case, and is not the cite to be used for the actual case at the District Court level. The actual cite will look something like this: Perry v. Schwarzenegger, ___ F.Supp. ___, No. C 09-2292 VRW (N.D. Calif., 2010).
Second, it is a district court decision, and those are not landmark decisions, those being almost exclusively U.S. Supreme Court decisions, with some Circuit Court decisions and some state Supreme Court decisions. I can think of no District Court decisions that are landmark cases.
Be patient. This case will go to the 9th Circuit and then to SCOTUS. Until then, it is simply not a landmark case.
Regards,19:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
OK, my bad about the citation, thanks! About being a landmark, I made the addition after I saw the New York Times editorial board call the case "an instant landmark in American legal history" (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/opinion/05thu1.html?ref=californias_proposition_8_samesex_marriage). (The Wikipedia entry for the case also happens to say that "The case is widely regarded as a landmark case...") Like you I also thought that landmarks are almost exclusively Supreme Court cases, but I deferred to the NY Times source here. But now I defer to you--looks like you've been doing this longer than I have. Just want it to be clear that I acknowledge the validity of what you're saying and that I was not, however, just using myself (so to speak) as a source.Goingforthetruth (talk) 03:41, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Not a problem on my part. CBS News said the same thing, but on some issues the media isn't the best place to look for legal analysis... :D It will get to the Supremes, and either way they decide, it will be a landmark. I was actually concerned that I would offend you - this is a controversial area, and I didn't want to cause any ill will. Regards,04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
You were so polite and thoughtful. That really came across. :) Just a second ago by the way I came across a respected (I think) source of legal analysis - SCOTUSblog - calling the decision landmark (http://www.scotusblog.com/2010/08/thursday-round-up-42/#more-23649). But that still doesn't really change things I suppose. You were very clear about your reasoning for the editing. It's all good.Goingforthetruth (talk) 04:39, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
- SCOTUSBlog is a good resource, I use is a lot. They're wrong in this context though. It'll take a while, and no one really listens to the District Court on this - not when both sides will continue to appeal it as far as they can. The trial judge did do a good job though - his findings of fact are detailed and meticulous, and the appellate courts have to accept those as gospel. They will only rule on issues of law, not fact. 04:44, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
Are there standards for this list?
It seems there are some cases that aren't on here that should be (Ex Parte Young, Ex Parte Milligan, Slaughter-House, and Erie, the no federal common law one, not the nude dancing one, just to name some obvious ones off the top of my head), especially in light of some of the really trivial cases on here (like the aforementioned nude dancing case), but I don't know if they can just be added unilaterally based on one editor's opinion of what cases are "landmarks". As a whole, this case is badly biased towards Constitutional cases about substantive rights (obviously an important area, but hardly the only important area of law), as well as towards recent cases. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
- I agree that there are huge inconsistencies in the list, with many trivial cases included and Landmark ones not mentioned. The Federalism Section, for instance has absolutely nothing related to the New Deal and crucial interpretations of the Commerce Clause. Edit boldly here, I say. Nwlaw63 (talk) 03:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
In order to avoid the specter of original research, we should limit the list to decisions that have been referred to by reliable third-party sources as "landmark" decisions (or at least some equivalent term). bd2412 T 00:59, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
Mischaracterization of Miller
The summary of United States v. Miller says the Court "Held that a sawed-off shotgun did not constitute a weapon suitable for militia use"; yet it did no such thing. As the United States v. Miller article explains, they held that unless that weapon could be shown to be militia-related, it was not necessarily protected by the second amendment. The case was remanded to the lower court to determine that question.
Lawrence v. Texas
It is my understanding that the Supreme Court's majority opinion stated that Texas' statute violated the Due Process Clause and that substantive due process... "liberty"... and not an Equal Protection argument was at hand here and that all forms of sodomy prohibition were unconstitutional. Therefore, it seems to me that this case is not really based on sexual orientation but rather on privacy. Though it is clear that Texas' statue solely applied the homosexuals, the Court's opinion goes further than that. As we know, all sodomy laws in the States are unconstitutional... not just homosexual sodomy laws (unless Justice O'Conner had gotten her way). Please correct me if I'm wrong and if I'm not, I believe the article should be moved to privacy and the word "homosexual" should be removed.
Blindman shady 03:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)