A fact from United Public Workers v. Mitchell appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 14 June 2010 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech articles
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
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
Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
I may have my stupid head on today, but it is not clear to me what the outcome was. The sentence "the Court decided in United Public Workers v. Mitchell, that a group of federal workers could not block enforcement of a law that created only the possibility of a threat to Ninth Amendment rights" is something more than delphic. --Tagishsimon(talk)14:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Who was Mitchell? Again, and still with stupid head on, I can see the article discusses the background and the decision; but it does not appear to me specify what (presumably) the United Public Workers were suing Mitchell for. And we know from the decision that there were multiple appellants, but get no hint of that earlier. So, probably, still some more work to do. Thanks. --Tagishsimon(talk)18:45, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Some minor bureaucrat they had to sue to get their case going. If Mitchell were notable, he or she would be mentioned. (Mitchell is not even mentioned in the Court's decision, except as defendant. That's quite common in legal decisions.) The second paragraph of the Background section quite clearly states what the union was suing for: "Various individual employees of the federal government, some of whom were members of the United Public Workers of America, sought an injunction against the second sentence of §9(a) of the Hatch Act, and a declaration that the Act was unconstitutional." - Tim1965 (talk) 22:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
