Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt

Not "wild speculation"

Hello! I have undone this edit by CharlesShirley. Here are various quotes from the sources mentioned in the Dissent section.

The Washington Post: Justice Stephen G. Breyer had other issues — abortion rights, for instance, or affirmative action — in mind in his dissent.

Forbes: In other words, will Roe v. Wade be next?

NY Times: Justice Breyer did not address the fate of Roe v. Wade directly. But he sounded a general note of caution

SCOTUSblog: The message here is not subtle. ... So perhaps the “next” overruling will involve abortion rights — another longtime target of conservative opposition.

For this reason, it is not "wild speculation", but rather it is verifiable speculation and as such permissible. --MrClog (talk) 11:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

I edited your change. You used the word "likely", arguing that the Roe getting overturned is "likely" based upon the result of FTB vs. Hyatt. That use of the word likely is clearly incorrect. In none of the articles that you cited to overturn my edit is the word "likely" used. None of the article made such a bold claim. I don't know where you found that word but it does not apply to this case or situation. All of the reliable sources that you cited were much, much more cautious in their evaluation of the implications of of FTB vs. Hyatt. For example, SCOTUSBlog, which you cited, is not even close to your personal opinion (I say personal opinion since you did not cite a reliable source that backed up your wording). SCOTUSBlog says, "Time will tell whether Hyatt has set the stage for overrulings to come." See: Opinion analysis: Hyatt fulfills expectations in a surprising way. The overturning of Roe is a possibility only. It is not "likely" because none of the cited reliable sources say it is likely. Also, the Forbes article only quoted a law professor who simply asked, "Will Roe be next?" He did not say the overturning of Roe is "likely". He just asked a question. His question is not support for the word likely.--CharlesShirley (talk) 00:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

CharlesShirley, You used the word "likely", arguing that the Roe getting overturned is "likely" based upon the result of FTB vs. Hyatt is completely incorrect. The article read The liberal bloc of the Court dissented, warning for the willingness of the conservative bloc to overrule precedent, saying that the "decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next", likely referring to the Court's past rulings on abortion (such as Roe v. Wade). As such, the article simply said that what justice Stephen Breyer, supported by the liberal bloc of the Court, said ("decision can only cause one to wonder which cases the court will overrule next") likely referred to past SCOTUS rulings on abortion. The mentioned sources support that he likely referred to past rulings on abortion, and as such the article should say so. --MrClog (talk) 10:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: please do not reinstate your edits before discussing the issue here per WP:BRD. I did make a small clarification with regards to justice Breyer writing the dissent based upon your edit, but it has been reverted. Let's not make it an edit war. Thank you, MrClog (talk) 14:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@CharlesShirley: Per WP:AN/EW, the issue should be discussed here. Could you please respond to my original response to kick things off? --MrClog (talk) 21:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A note about precedent for future editors

Precedent is one pillar of the American legal system. My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that more content should be added to this article to emphasize the implications the overturning of a 40-year-old precedent could have on past "settled" court decisions. I'm sure there are a lot of reliable sources (the ABA for example) that are addressing this. Orville1974 (talk) 17:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Orville1974, will look into it! Any section you recommend putting it in? MrClog (talk) 17:28, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I think in the Supreme Court section just before the majority/dissenting opinion breakout. Orville1974 (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Orville1974, I added the sentence: The Supreme Court has expressed that stare decisis is "indispensable" to the rule of law, and as such it is seldom overruled. (Citing Columbia Law Review and the Wex Legal Encyclopedia.) Is that enough of an explanation in your opinion? MrClog (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure. If this ruling continues to be an outlier, the inclusion above is sufficient. If future rulings continue to break precedent, more will probably be written about the potential turning point of this case. If that occurs, more content regarding this case and stare decisis can be added then. Orville1974 (talk) 16:18, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

"Surprisingly" affirmed WP:NPV

I know the word "surprisingly" is in the article, but it comes off as lacking a WP:NPV. Just saying "a case that affirmed" or "a case that narrowly affirmed" is less opinionated. The first provides no opinion, and "narrowly" is factually accurate, as the result in that case was a divided judgment with no majority opinion. Orville1974 (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Orville1974, the cited article's title is "The last time the Supreme Court was invited to overturn Roe v. Wade, a surprising majority was unwilling". WP:NPOV does not require us to be objective, it simply requires us to fairly represent what sources say. MrClog (talk) 13:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi MrClog! While it's a fair representation of that source, most of the sources I see don't seem surprised by the decision, since it upheld stare decisis. (So a decision in that case to uphold stare decisis was not that surprising, which is why the court's decision to overrule a prior ruling in FTB v Hyatt case is so unusual.) In the sources below, I have added the emphasis (by underlining):

• "After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed."
• "To date, the Court has declined every opportunity to overrule itself, which means that lower-court federal judges hearing abortion cases—even judges who quietly find the anti-choice argument to be more convincing—must uphold Roe and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, a 1992 decision that narrowly affirmed Roe, too. During his confirmation hearings last year, Brett Kavanaugh dutifully acknowledged that Roe is "settled and a precedent of the Supreme Court," and is "entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis."
• "By the narrowest of margins, and in words reflecting anger and anguish alike at its continuing role in the center of the storm over abortion, the Supreme Court today reaffirmed what it called the "essence" of the constitutional right to abortion while at the same time permitting some new state restrictions."

References

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 08:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

1. General
   1. There is a lot of talk about Nevada v. Hall - can some info be included in the background section as to that case?
2. Lede
   1. The 5–4 decision is unusual as it overruled precedent set in a 1979 Supreme Court case, Nevada v. Hall. - why is overruling precedent unusual? According to whom was this unusual? Awkward phrasing
   2. ...both in court and through administrative proceedings. Due to this ruling... - is this referring to the SCOTUS ruling, the administrative proceedings, or something else?
3. #Supreme Court
   1. The Supreme Court justices who decided on the case - were these the justices who decided it the first time (4-4) or the second time (5-4)?
   2. In deciding the case in favor of the FTB, the Court overruled the 1979 case Nevada v. Hall, a 40-year-old case where the Court had previously come to the opposite conclusion. The Supreme Court has expressed that stare decisis is "indispensable" to the rule of law, and as such it is seldom overruled.
      1. It is clear that, if a court overrules a previous decision, the decisions must conflict; saying that it had "come to the opposite conclusion" is unneeded
      2. it is seldom overruled - no one overrules the Supreme Court, it merely overturns its precedent; also, what does "it" refer to? stare decisis? the rule of law?
      3. Overruled should be "overturned"
4. #Background
   1. ...an appeal is still pending - needs to be updated
   2. The Court did rule, however, that because Nevada law limits... - which court?
   3. Because earlier rulings by the Nevada Supreme Court had limited FTB's liability... - which rulings?
5. #Majority opinion
   1. Some legal experts have criticized the opinion... - who?
6. #See also
   1. a decision which held that the Eleventh Amendment is retroactive - the only previous discussion of the 11th amendment was ...there was backlash causing the Eleventh Amendment to be passed. - if the 11th amendment is relevant, it should at least be explained generally
7. #Notes
   1. n 2: Why is the list of 44 states needed? And, if it is included, it should be sourced
8. #Further reading - all of the further readings listed require subscriptions - if the section is included, at least 1 open-access resource should be included

Discussion

Given the issues noted above, I have placed this GA on hold. Please let me know if there are any questions --DannyS712 (talk) 19:47, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: Just a reminder ping about this. AIRcorn (talk) 07:19, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Um, the article hasn't been edited since October 14, so the issues are still there. Are you suggesting I should close it? DannyS712 (talk) 07:44, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

There is no deadline as such so it is up to you in the end. Many of these get forgotten about and sometimes the editors just need a push to get things going. If you have made comments and no one has replied or fixed the issues after a month you would be justified in failing it. Digging a bit more I see MrClog took a wikibreak on 19th September, after you created this page, but well before the review was started. I can't work out when they will be back, but they do say a long wikibreak. You have a few options. You could fail it as enough time has passed. if MrClog comes back they will see your comments and could renominate it again. You could wait a bit longer given the delay in starting the review. You could try and find someone else to address your concerns (wikiprojects can be fruitful). There is no wrong option, but it currently is the 7th oldest hold so it is likely other editors like me will come along and query the status at some point. We generally arn't too worried as long as we see progress being made. AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Okay. Given my delay in starting the review, I was planning to wait longer than normal DannyS712 (talk) 08:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No problem. Ping me if you have any questions. AIRcorn (talk) 09:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I will work on the article utilising the above feedback before the end of the month. --MrClog (talk) 16:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712 and MrClog: Still no editing since October at the article. How are we placed? AIRcorn (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: DannyS712 (talk · contribs) 08:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I should get to this in the next few days --DannyS712 (talk) 08:35, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Review

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable, as shown by a source spot-check. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Notes

1. Lede: Who refers to it as Hyatt III? Source please

   I remember it being referred to as such by an article; I'll look for it. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

   Added Harvard Law Review reference. --MrClog (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2. Background: Because an earlier ruling by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2014 had limited FTB's liability to fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress (two torts), the maximum award was set at $100,000. - What was the earlier ruling? "an earlier ruling in Foo v. Bar by the Nevada Supreme Court in 2014" would help the reader be able to find the case

   The court case is cited and quoted from at the end of the sentence (ref 11). Its name is Franchise Tax Bd. v. Hyatt. Does it have to be included in the test, considering the name is almost the same as the name of the SCOTUS case or is it enough if it is cited at the end? --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

3. Background: As of May 13, 2019, an appeal is still pending. - update please

   I have been looking for an update before I submitted the 2nd GAN, but couldn't find any RS reporting on it since Justice Thomas' May 13, 2019 opinion. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

4. Background: The U.S. Supreme Court had previously ruled in a similar case, namely the 1979 case Nevada v. Hall. - awkward phrasing, why "namely"?

   Amended. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

5. "Supreme Court" image caption - The Supreme Court justices who decided on the 2019 case - Justices decide a case, not on a case

   Amended. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

6. Notes: Why is the list of 44 states needed?

   I feel like, in case someone is interested in knowing whether a state (or their state) signed the brief, it would be handy to have the list. In addition, it's pretty significant that 44 states sign the same brief. --MrClog (talk) 21:33, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

   @MrClog: How about then listing the ones that didn't sign? "All but ___". Not important, its just pretty jarring to me to see the long list DannyS712 (talk) 22:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

   @DannyS712: Amended. --MrClog (talk) 08:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

I'm placing this on hold pending resolution of the issues noted above --DannyS712 (talk) 21:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Per responses above, issues that can be addressed have been. This now passes its good article nomination --DannyS712 (talk) 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Gilbert Hyatt patent.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

FYI: I nominated my own upload. I had misread the publication date (1990, not 1970), and, unfortunately, patents published after March 1, 1989 are copyrighted. --MrClog (talk) 19:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Review towards featured article status

This is an interesting case, and a well written article too! Definitely a GA, and close to FA. Most of my concerns stem from criterion 1b, so I hope to point out aspects of the subject which could use greater coverage.

• Oral arguments and related details are not mentioned.
  • Who were the attorneys that appeared at oral arguments? (Seth Waxman appeared for petitioners and Erwin Chemerinsky appeared for respondents according to Oyex)
  • What were the arguments that each side made? How did the justices respond to the arguments, and what were the important lines of questioning? SCOTUSblog has two articles on this, see [1][2]. There is also an argument preview which can help flesh out discussion of what the important conflicts were.
• Subsequent history and impact of the case are not well covered
  • How did the lower courts respond to this ruling? The answer is scattered across the article, and it would be helpful if it was consolidated into its own section.
  • How has this ruling shaped (or how do experts expect it to shape) other cases at the state and federal level? There are a number of law review articles cited that may have some answers, and SCOTUSblog also has an article on this point.
    • To this point, stare decisis seems to be an important point of contention between the majority and dissent, but its discussion is limited. For those unfamiliar with constitutional law, the article is clear enough that they can grasp what it means and that it is uncommon, but not why it is important nor why it would be such a serious point of contention. The quote from Breyer is a really good one, but there should be a more thorough overview of the stare decisis issue prior to the description of the opinions.
• The prior history in the infobox should be more comprehensive. A complete list of previous citations and levels of hearings is useful encyclopedic information. Ideally, we would have Hyatt I and II articles so that the prior history section of each could just cover the cases and appeals in the interim between SCOTUS cases. Some balance between those would be ideal.

Hopefully this helps! Feel free to follow up with me. I'd be interested in working on Hyatt I, Hyatt II, or Nevada v. Hall if you wanted to keep improving this area. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Also, ideally at some point we would move this page to Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019) and turn Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt into a disambiguation page given that there are three cases on this, but that's not an FA concern. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Thanks for the comments, Wugapodes. I'll try to implement the suggestions you gave. Regarding the case history: I struggled to find a complete overview of lower court proceedings; do you have any specific way in which I could find that history? --MrClog (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The petition for writ of certiorari contains in its appendices a list of previous decisions relevant to this case. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I looked at the appendices and came to the following list of prior judgements (I have it in a .txt file for now).

(A382999) May 31, 2000 - District Court Clark County, Nevada - FTB's motion for summary judgement or dismissal denied.
(35549/36390) April 4, 2002 - Supreme Court of Nevada - FTB's petition for writ of mandamus granted in part; FTB's petition for a writ of prohibition granted in part; FTB's petition to limit scope of trial denied.
Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Hyatt, 538 U.S. 488 (2003) - Affirmed judgement by Nev. Supreme Court
(A382999) Feb. 2, 2009 - District Court Clark County, Nevada - FTB's motion for a judgement as a matter of law or a new trial denied; FTB's alternative motion for a new trial denied.
Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt, 578 US ___ (2016) - Nev. Supreme Court affirmed in part, reversed in part
(53264) Sept. 14, 2017 - Supreme Court of Nevada
(53264) Dec. 26, 2017 - Supreme Court of Nevada - Petition for rehearing granted.

It is clearly incomplete. Do you have any other ways of finding the case history? --MrClog (talk) 01:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

The opinions themselves usually start off with a brief case history overview. The ones I got came from the opinion of Hyatt III, but only covers the appellate cases. I think Hyatt I and/or II would probably have a more complete history. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

I found the records for the trial court at https://www.clarkcountycourts.us/. Will look for more case history in the SCOTUS Hyatt opinions. MrClog (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: I haven't gotten around to expanding the article much, though will do so in the near future. However, I did manage to secure permission for the use of two court sketches by Arthur Lien. I added them to the article. --MrClog (talk) 14:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

This is fantastic! This is literally the best news I've gotten in a while. These represent the only visual depictions of oral argument Wikipedia has, and likely the only ones we will have for a while, so having these licensed under CC-BY-SA means we can use them on other articles. You've just helped create an entire area of the encyclopedia that can now be illustrated. I hope you (and Arthur Lien) don't take lightly just how important of a contribution this is! — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Featured picture scheduled for POTD

Hello! This is to let editors know that File:Chemerinsky during Hyatt III sketch.jpg, a featured picture used in this article, has been selected as the English Wikipedia's picture of the day (POTD) for October 10, 2022. A preview of the POTD is displayed below and can be edited at Template:POTD/2022-10-10. For the greater benefit of readers, any potential improvements or maintenance that could benefit the quality of this article should be done before its scheduled appearance on the Main Page. If you have any concerns, please place a message at Wikipedia talk:Picture of the day. Thank you! Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.9% of all FPs} 11:05, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt was a 2019 United States Supreme Court case that determined that, unless they consent, states have sovereign immunity from private lawsuits filed against them in the courts of another state. The 5–4 decision overturned precedent set in the 1979 Supreme Court case Nevada v. Hall. This was the litigants' third time presenting their case to the Supreme Court, which had previously ruled on the issue initially in 2003 and subsequently in 2016. This courtroom sketch by the American sketch artist Arthur Lien depicts Erwin Chemerinsky presenting oral arguments for the respondent in the 2019 case, with the Supreme Court justices Elena Kagan and Brett Kavanaugh looking on in the background.

Illustration credit: Arthur Lien

Recently featured:

• Sky Reflector-Net at Fulton Center
• Rosy-faced lovebird
• Alcázar of Segovia

Requested move 10 November 2022

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Moved by administrator Happy-melon. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^put'r there 00:02, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

---

• Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (2019) → Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt
• Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt → Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt (disambiguation)

– This seems to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, when comparing it to the other two articles. Move the current Franchise Tax Board of California v. Hyatt to a disambiguation page. PhotographyEdits (talk) 08:05, 10 November 2022 (UTC) —Added move of related disambiguation page. Rotideypoc41352 (talk · contribs) 00:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC) — Relisting. – robertsky (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.