This article follows the Law Manual of Style and was created following the article outline at WikiProject:SCOTUS. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes.
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 United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
NPOV issue: This article is written in a way that expresses strong disapproval of the Court's decision in the case. It focuses only on the negative impacts (in part through the use of a long quote) and possible ways to negate the decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:2185:2D1A:B4EF:81C9:C8C (talk) 21:12, 27 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
Significantly revised the article. Although the quote was left in, it was balanced with opposing viewpoints. In the same way, the POV language on negating the decision was balanced with information showing that the proposed bill was likely unconstitutional. GregJackPBoomer!13:49, 30 July 2012 (UTC)Reply
