# Talk:Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez

This review is transcluded from Talk:Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Lead sections should normally have a maximum of 3 sections; recommend consolidating the existing ones.
"The district court denied an injunction. This was later affirmed in part and reversed in part by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit; it upheld other restrictions that were challenged but held that the welfare advocacy restriction was unconstitutional" - explain the Court of Appeals judgment more fully.
"he court also attacked the fact that the restriction functionally barred participation of attorneys in the courts, as an effect of preventing certain cases from being filed" - this needs to be clarified and explained for the layman.
"Justice Scalia dissented from the decision of the court, primarily believing that Rust mandated a ruling upholding the restriction." - "Justice Scalia dissented from the decision of the court, primarily due to a belief that Rust mandated a ruling upholding the restriction."
Merge the two paragraphs in "Reaction".
"The Legal Services Corporation said they would "immediately review our regulations and then modify them to adhere to the Court's ruling"" - "The Legal Services Corporation said they would "immediately review [their] regulations and then modify them to adhere to the Court's ruling""
As a general principle, you need to wikilink a lot more legal terms ;p. Ironholds (talk) 01:51, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done Please tell me if there is anything else I should change and thanks for reviewing. :) Lord Roem (talk) 18:32, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

"It first went through the case law relating to Government speech." - should Government be capitalised?
"this alleged error was claimed to misguide the rest of the Court's analysis." needs a cite.
You need to make clear, the first time his name appears, that Gozdor is the writer of the article.
"Lastly, an article" - remove "lastly".
Is there any tweakage you can perform on the paragraph beginnings in this section? Everything is "A" "An" "Another" "An" and so on. Ironholds (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 Done - Lord Roem (talk) 19:21, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Now passed! Congratulations :). Ironholds (talk) 19:28, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
 Thank you !!!! - Lord Roem (talk) 19:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be a very ambitious article to make a run at featured status with. Some things I would suggest looking into: (1) the arguments made by LSC before the statute, that would have violated the statute had it been in place, and the discussion of them in the legislative history of the act, (2) the arguments made by LSC, after that statute was invalidated, and whether or not they prevailed in any significant cases. In other words, how much of a practical impact did the statute, and its invalidation have, one the work of LSC lawyers and the development of welfare law. In terms of the extensive commentary that I'm sure exists in law reviews, books, and other secondary sources, I would suggest trying to figure out how this case ties in with the following themes: (1) government speech, (2) government subsidies of speech, (3) unconstitutional conditions, (4) viewpoint discrimination, (5) the public forum doctrine, and (6) speech of lawyers. In terms of the first two items, many commentators have tried to put this case and Rust side-by-side to understand how they could possibly coexist (keeping in mind that not all the justices thought they could). In terms of the last, it would be interesting to consider whether this case is really just about lawyers. In other words, how much was the court influenced by the perceived interference of Congress with the lawyer-client relationship. Would be interesting to see how lower courts have applied and/or distinguished this case in light of these themes as well. I think it would be better to organize the commentary thematically (and perhaps I have missed some themes) rather than simply by praise/criticism. Savidan 22:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Savidan, thank you for your feedback. You've isolated a series of places I can work on to improve the article. I appreciate your thorough analysis. Regards, Lord Roem (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
This is a very good article. Kudos to whoever wrote it! ImTheIP (talk) 04:22, 27 August 2020 (UTC)