Talk:Fairchild v. Hughes

	This article is part of WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases, a collaborative effort to improve articles related to Supreme Court cases and the Supreme Court. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.U.S. Supreme Court casesWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesTemplate:WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court casesU.S. Supreme Court articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women's History Low‑importance

	History portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Article Five of the United States Constitution#Ratification|ratified]] Anchor Article Five of the United States Constitution#Ratification links to a specific web page: Ratification. The anchor (#Ratification) has been deleted by other users before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

"Case"

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Super technical here -- this is not a "case." Standing jurisprudence comes from the constitution referring to "cases and controversies." The courts can only decide those two things. If it is a case or a controversy, there is standing. Since there is no standing here, there is no case or controversy, and... ideally, this should not be described as a case.

Although I assume nobody anywhere cares. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 01:37, 30 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

@DanHakimi: Nothing wrong with using a more correct wording... What word would be more precise? lawsuit? controversy? --2601:646:8D81:EEC:C963:26B2:22CC:AB55 (talk) 19:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

PS: Please feel free to make the improvement to the article, I can't imagine it would be controversial, and WP:BRD is how we roll. --2601:646:8D81:EEC:C963:26B2:22CC:AB55 (talk) 23:51, 3 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

Problem

Latest comment: 3 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There's a problem with the second paragraph of the 'Background' section. It states Charles Evans Hughes acknowledged Tennessee's ratification of the 19th Amendment in August 1920. Hughes wasn't Secretary of State at this time; Bainbridge Colby was. Hughes became Secretary of State in March 1921, so it was he who was defendant in this case before the Supreme Court in 1922. Was this case previously Fairchild v Colby in the courts of the District of Columbia? The sources in the paragraph don't say. FieldOfWheat (talk) 22:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Add topic