Talk:United States v. Lee (1882)

Untitled

This article is very good on the history. To be that good on the law, I think it would need to put this case in the context (what later became known as) the Ex parte Young doctrine. It also might go to the law reviews (some of the relevant ones of which are already in the references section), to provide the reader some indication of whether this case is still good law after Idaho v. Coeur d'Alene (an open, but debated, question). Savidan 20:09, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

• I agree. I started this article, and was adding some of the legal stuff. But I ran into real-world work. :) As to the point as to whether it's still good law, footnote 75 (Seamon, 1998, p. 173-174) says it is—and that is post-Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho. This is already specifically mentioned in the article in regards to Jumel and Ayers but could be made more explicit to Idaho v. Idaho. Additionally, the Randy Meyer article (""The Supreme Court's Analysis in Idaho v. Coeur D'Alene Tribe of Idaho: Is the Young Exception to the Eleventh Amendment Inapplicable to Indian Tribe Claims?") did not address the question. It did, however, mention Lee as part of the Court's historical development of sovereign immunity. I'll still be working on this piece, but others could help with the legal research too. - Tim1965 (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

• I myself have doubts. Coeur said the Young exception wouldn't work for anything that looked or felt like quiet title. The only conceivable difference is that Coeur involved a state, while Lee involved the federal government. Savidan 00:48, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Also, I would recommend removing the reference to the Constitution in the intro. Federal sovereign immunity is not mentioned in the text of the constitution. It is perhaps evidenced by its structure. Even with state sovereign immunity, which is explicit in the 11th amendment, the court has made clear that the scope of the doctrine goes beyond the text. While the exact source of the doctrine is fuzzy, and certainly the Constitution is relevant, it's too much for the intro, which simply isn't the appropriate space for an explanation of this. Savidan 00:50, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Unclear sentence

In the section Seizure of the estate, I see the sentence "With rebel forces occupying Arlington's high ground, the capital was left in an untenable military position". It is not at all obvious what this means. My guess is that "rebel forces" means "Confederate forces", and that "the capital" is not the capital of Virginia, nor of the Confederacy, but of the Union. If I were sure, I would clarify the sentence. Maproom (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• It seems pretty clear in context. How many rebel forces were there in the U.S. in 1864? What capital is next to Alexandria, Virginia? Feel free to make changes. Be bold. - Tim1965 (talk) 14:06, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Clear to a US citizen like you, maybe; but not to a Brit like me. I have changed the sentence. Maproom (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Discussing removed section - contradictions?

I have removed a section from the article, and reproduced it below:

'''Interestingly, the ''Lee'' decision also created a contradiction within the Supreme Court's approach to federal-state relations. Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 of the United States Constitution bars the federal government from acquiring the land of any state except with that state's express permission.<ref name="Paust">Paust, 1999, p. 318, note 60.</ref> In ''United States v. Penn'', 48 F. 669, 670 (C.C.E.D. Va. 1880), a circuit court had held that the federal government held no jurisdiction over Arlington National Cemetery because it had not obtained Virginia's permission to hold title to the land.<ref name="Paust" /> The ''Lee'' Court never addressed this issue, and in fact came to the opposite conclusion (its decision to return the property to the Lee family being founded on other grounds).<ref name="Paust" />'''

I think it needs some reworking because there's several contradictions and simply wrong conclusions of law here. For one, Article I, Section 8, Clause 17 (or the Enclave Clause) does not bar the federal government from acquiring land within states without state permission. Rather, it requires that state permission be granted if the federal government wishes to exercise exclusive jurisidiction over land it has newly purchased, because doing so creates a "federal enclave" in which a state has essentially no powers whatsoever. The federal government does not need any permission to simply purchase land in fee simple, and then, as the proprietary landholder, exercise concurrent jurisdiction over the land as authorized by the Property Clause (Article IV, Section 3, Clause 2). Some legal discussion of this can be found here. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:56, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 29 May 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. (non-admin closure) —Guanaco 00:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

---

• United States v. Lee → United States v. Lee (1882)
• United States v. Lee (disambiguation) → United States v. Lee

– There are several US cases with the name United States v. Lee. US Federal Courts distinguish cases with the same name with the year in parentheses after the case name. I am requesting two moves: First, change the current United States v. Lee to add the year (1882) to distinguish this case from other cases with the same name. Second, change the United States v. Lee (disambiguation) to United States v. Lee so that if someone searches for United States v. Lee, this will assist in finding the correct case. Chipermc (talk) 23:16, 29 May 2017 (UTC)--Relisting. Cúchullain ^t/c 15:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

My two questions are: )1) What does the Wikiproject U.S. Supreme Court cases say about this in its MOS recommendations? (2) While there are many federal cases with the name "U.S. v. Lee", not all of them are notable. Is there there more than one such case at the Supreme Court level which would require this sort of differentiation? - Tim1965 (talk) 15:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for the same reasons set out at the RM for United States v. Williams. With only two articles, follow WP:TWODABS. TJRC (talk) 22:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• Support; I think we're in WP:SNOW territory here, so this is probably unnecessary, but FWIW, I too now support, since WP:TWODABS no longer applies. TJRC (talk) 22:09, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - Agree with user:TJRC, WP:TWODABS makes it easier for the reader. CBS527^Talk 11:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I will add that I've changed my !vote on the other RM on United States v. Williams, because the proponent Chipermc also created a third article, United States v. Williams (1951), making WP:TWODABS no longer applicable to that RM (although it continues to apply here). If a third United States v. Lee article is actually created -- whether by the proponent or by anyone else -- I would possibly change my position here as well, depending on whether one of the cases is a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC (on which I express no opinion). Chipermc has said on my talk page that he intends to produce such additional articles, on this RM and others; but, in the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:TOOSOON, WP:WTAF, and WP:NORUSH, I would hold off on the DAB page maintenance to support those additional articles until after the articles exist and there is a need for it. TJRC (talk) 15:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose for now per WP:TWODABS, with no prejudice to future creation when we have other "U.S. v. Lee" articles. FYI, I think there are only two SCOTUS decisions (on the merits) titled "United States v. Lee," though we may have future articles for circuit court cases with this name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 07:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I am updating my vote to support now that we have three articles with this name. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - Agree that disambiguation hatnote is enough for now. - Tim1965 (talk) 23:09, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support - A disambiguation hatnote probably isn't enough. Although disambiguation hatnotes can accommodate several articles with similar names, in the Wikipedia Supreme Court project the recommendation appears to be to use different names as well to help end confusion among readers. - Tim1965 (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

• Update United States v. Lee (1927) has been added as an article. This case is important as it paved the way for US authorities to search and seize vessels outside US territorial waters if suspected of violating US laws. It has been cited over 1000 times in US Federal Court cases. There are over 125 published Federal Court cases with the title, United States v. Lee. Each published case typically establishes a precedent, and therefore could conceivably be important enough to have its own Wiki page. With the third page, I hope this will overcome the objections raised in this discussion. chipermc (talk) 05:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Support. There are now three articles, so WP:TWODABS no longer applies, and there is no clear primary topic between the three of them. bd2412 T 20:59, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
  • @Cbs527 and Tim1965: Have the circumstances changed enough to merit a change in position? bd2412 T 02:51, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.