Talk:Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales

	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.

Disputed

Latest comment: 11 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I'll rewrite the article myself in a couple of weeks, but for the moment, the description of the case and its background is flat-out wrong. Colorado had a "mandatory arrest" statute for restraining order violations, which Gonzales argued gave her a property right in its enforcement, which is what she argued was violated (asides from the violation of the mandatory arrest provision - which wouldn't have been a matter for federal courts anyway). The issue of Federal enforcement of restraining orders was never raised (and wouldn't have made it to SCOTUS if it had!) and the court really didn't rule on anything besides Gonzales's property right claim and the due process complaint. Technically, the court didn't even rule that Castle Rock wasn't responsible so much as that it just ruled Castle Rock hadn't violated the 14th Amendment (the Court opinion treated the restraining order as a process, and decided that there are no due process rights to be provided a process) and the suit could thus be thrown out of Federal court.

Also, the gun control thing, while it wouldn't surprise me to find it's true, as always a source would be good.The Literate Engineer 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)Reply

Massive Re-write part 1, done. Oh yay. I changed the tag from disputed, since it's no longer disputed, just incomplete.

THe article said the United States does not participate in the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights. All members of the OAS are required to participate in Inter-American Commission on Human Rights as part of ratification of the OAS Charter agreement. The US does not participate in the similarly named Inter-American Court of Human Rights which was created by the Pact of San Jose aka the American Convention on Human Rights, which the United States signed but has not ratified. I corrected this statement. If the lawyers had brought up the American Declaration, things in the SCOTUS probably would have been different as they would have had to take in the view of the OAS on these matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.146.218 (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2013 (UTC)Reply

Add topic