Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases

message: I have a couple small changes in mind about how we link to opinions, which I welcome comments on:
* In pending cases, I see we often have placeholders for not yet released opinions, like "Justia  Oyez (oral argument audio)  [ Supreme Court (slip opinion)]  [ Supreme Court (preliminary print)]" (e.g. Special:Diff/1158363538 by User:JocularJellyfish). I think it would be preferable not to add this text preemptively, which can be confusing. The Justia link in particular is invariably a dead link. I would rather we just wait until the opinions are actually available. (And I trust we'll update pages expeditiously then.)
* Once the preliminary print is released, it seems a little excessive to include external links to both the slip opinion and preliminary print. I would remove the slip opinion link at that point. Between the two, the preliminary print is closer to what's going to be final/official, and can have some (usually very minor) revisions. (The counterargument might be that the gray background text "Page Proof Pending Publication" is annoying to read.)
Adumbrativus (talk) 02:18, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the first point, I am not opposed to commenting Template:caselaw source out, so it can be quickly unhidden when the case is decided. Adding the Oyez link when cert is granted might be worth it, however, as the case page on that website is created almost immediately after cert is granted. Regarding the second, my view is that keeping both links is appropriate, both because the slip opinion avoids the watermark, and because the Supreme Court is making it difficult to find the slip opinion links after the preliminary print is added. However, retaining the link on the Wikipedia page for each case allows readers to access the slip opinion, where it might otherwise be impossible to locate the link. – JocularJellyfish TalkContribs 02:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the comments! That all sounds pretty reasonable to me. Adumbrativus (talk) 02:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Slip opinions and preliminary prints 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Inconsistency in Younger v. Harris 

message: 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)
thread_title:  [[Draft:Berkovitz v. United States‎]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Good article reassessment for [[Hamdan v. Rumsfeld]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: I've replied at WT:WikiProject Law#Please weigh in on Gibson Dunn. SilverLocust 💬 17:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits needed to [[Gibson Dunn]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Holmes Devise histories 

message: 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)
thread_title:  RSN Discussion 

message: 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 . 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  "Opinion of the Court"