Talk:Garland v. Cargill

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal 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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance

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

Firearms Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms 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.FirearmsWikipedia:WikiProject FirearmsTemplate:WikiProject FirearmsFirearms articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Avoid using the decision text directly

@Irruptive Creditor: I have tried to put all your updates or substantially equivalent parts of those back in the article after the first major revert. Your edits added a lot of material sourced directly to the decision or other cases directly, which we should not do because determining the substantial aspects of a decision is original research that we cannot do - we are not considered legal experts (even if outside Wikipedia we may have this skill) We should be using third-party sources (in this case like Reason) to help identify how the case is broken down and decided. In the case of the explanation Thomas gave, Reason gives a good high level overview of this on multiple points, which I believe covered what you had added but directly from the case text. And here, quoting Thomas' decision is better than paraphrasing due to the complexities of his points. — Masem (t) 14:50, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]