Talk:American Civil Liberties Union v. Ashcroft (2004)

	This redirect 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 redirect has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Law

This redirect 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

United States

This redirect 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.

United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles

Title

Is not this case supposed to be titled Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union? --IVI Auric 08:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Appeal

Did Ashcroft take the case to the USSC? 'Cos if not, surely the 90 day delay granted by Justice Marreo would have run out by now. --David.Mestel 20:52, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

pending review

"The government was expected to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court, and until the district court ruling is reviewed, the secrecy procedures of the NSL remain in place."

this is unclear. does this mean the govt could choose not to appeal it and magically keep the secrecy in place forever? is this why there's been no update? --dan (talk) 17:53, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

update

http://www.ca2.uscourts.gov:8080/isysnative/RDpcT3BpbnNcT1BOXDA3LTQ5NDMtY3Zfb3BuLnBkZg==/07-4943-cv_opn.pdf

THF (talk) 01:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

This article needs to be merged with Doe v. Gonzales. That article should have been renamed Doe v. Mukasey, but now needs to be renamed Doe v. Holder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.246.152.8 (talk) 21:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Information

The ISP and the person name is now available. http://www.aclu.org/national-security/national-security-letter-recipient-can-speak-out-first-time-fbi-demanded-customer- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.136.40 (talk) 19:32, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What?

What is the lawsuit about? The lead doesn't even mention it... 143.138.26.178 (talk) 04:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Move?

move - change name to Doe v. Holder? Accotink2 talk 15:09, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem

This article has been reverted by a bot to this version as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) This has been done to remove User:Accotink2's contributions as they have a history of extensive copyright violation and so it is assumed that all of their major contributions are copyright violations. Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. VWBot (talk) 14:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]