Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

Resources	Members	Style guide	Plan
Article alerts	Reports	Accomplishments	Feedback

Old slip opinion deadlinks

What should be done with the deadlinks to slip opinion that have been deleted from SupremeCourt.gov? Currently, this includes opinions from 2015 and earlier, such as this.

• We could find archive versions from the Internet Archive, but that is not done authomatically within the {{Caselaw source}} template.
• It would be much easier to just remove them (as with Special:Diff/1168645679), or to comment them out (as with Special:Diff/1168647876).

I am inclined toward the latter options. SilverLocust 💬 03:58, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

• All old case opinions are still available through that website, at [1]. Mind you, they generate 1000+ pg PDFs, so you have to add a #page to the URL (the page # in the PDF, not the normally cited page number). Eg, randomly picked, Lockhart v. United States (2016) is at [2]. --Masem (t) 04:14, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I would think those are separate issues (i.e., whether to link the final U.S. Reports and whether to remove the old slip opinions). Also, let me revise what I am suggesting. These could both be implemented very easily:

• We could archive the slip opinion deadlinks with Internet Archive (as with Special:Diff/1168650274).
• We could remove the slip opinion deadlinks (as with Special:Diff/1168645679).

(Also, I am just referring to removing the links in the "external links" {{Caselaw source}} section, not in any references that for whatever reason link to the slip opinion.) SilverLocust 💬 04:34, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll just switch the deadlinks to archived links for now, if there is no objection to that. SilverLocust 💬 04:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we definitely should be including a link to the U.S. Reports bound volume PDF, with the #page in the manner that Masem suggests. (That is, for everything not old enough to be included in the Library of Congress collection [3] with its friendlier non-1000 page PDFs.) It's formally what's published, can contain minor revisions, and has the page numbering that people will cite. But yes this is a separate issue. Adumbrativus (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Inconsistency in Younger v. Harris

I noted at Talk:Younger v. Harris#Two different lists of three exceptions that the article seems to be inconsistent and provides two different lists of exceptions; it would be great if an expert could take a look. Joriki (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@Joriki: I believe the first list is what was set forth in the case, and the second list is what was eventually refined by the courts to be the doctrine emanating from the case. BD2412 T 17:42, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Berkovitz v. United States‎

I have started a draft at Draft:Berkovitz v. United States‎, a rather important case involving the liability of a government agency when it screws up a non-discretionary function. Cheers! BD2412 T 17:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Edits needed to Gibson Dunn

I’ve suggested some important edits to the page that need review. The firm has argued several noteworthy cases in front of SCOTUS so if there is an editor here who could be of assistance, I (employee of the firm) would welcome the feedback. Talk:Gibson_Dunn#February_2024_Requested_Edits CaseyatLeicesterStreet (talk) 14:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I've replied at WT:WikiProject Law#Please weigh in on Gibson Dunn. SilverLocust 💬 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Holmes Devise histories

I was noticing the other day that the Internet Archive has scanned a lot of volumes of the Holmes Devise History of the Supreme Court in the last year or two. These are very comprehensive (to a fault...) sources, and many of them are difficult to find online because of errors in the metadata, so I figured I'd list what's available here in case anyone finds it useful:

• Volume I (beginnings to 1801): Internet Archive
• Volume II (1801–1815): not to my knowledge currently available online
• Volumes III and IV (1815–1835): Internet Archive
• Volume V (1836–1864): Internet Archive
• Volume VI (1864–1888, pt. 1): Internet Archive
• Volume VII (1864–1888, pt. 2): Internet Archive
• Volume VIII (1888–1910): Internet Archive
• Volume IX (1910–1921): Internet Archive
• Volume X (1921–1930): Cambridge Core through the Wikipedia Library
• Volume XI (1930–1941): Cambridge Core through the Wikipedia Library
• Volume XII (1941–1953): Internet Archive

Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

RSN Discussion

A source that primarily deals with U.S. law, especially the Supreme Court, is currently being discussed at RSN. WikiProject members are invited to join the discussion. QuicoleJR (talk) 15:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

"Opinion of the Court"

The style guide currently recommends "Opinion of the Court" as a section title (or one of two possible section titles). This strikes me as somewhat crosswise of MOS:HEAD, especially the familiar injunction to [n]ot redundantly refer back to the subject of the article. Given that articles covered by this style guide are specifically about Supreme Court proceedings, is there any reason not to shorten this header to "Opinion"? -- Visviva (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

"Opinion" would cause confusion when there are also dissenting, concurring, etc. opinions. But "majority opinion" works, as would "decision" in some cases (I've used both before). At any rate, that style guide mainly reflects one or two editors' opinions, so while it contains some useful advice, feel free to just do whatever makes the most sense to you in any given instance. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

This depends upon how we decide to balance correctness against brevity. "Opinion of the Court" may be clunky, but it is the technically correct term. A majority opinion is the official opinion of the court, not just of the judges in the majority.  White Whirlwind  14:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I would use "majority opinion", "plurality opinion", "concurring opinion [by X]", "dissenting opinion [by X]", etc. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:51, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

The style guide was an attempt at standardizing the headings. I don't think it's followed much. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:42, 20 May 2024 (UTC)