Talk:Trump v. Hawaii

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 11 January 2021 and 13 March 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): J.perales1121.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:28, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Need to add Breyer dissent, joined by Kagan to SCOTUS decision.

The dissent of Justice Sotomayor was short, so I added it verbatim, whereas Justice Breyer's dissent is longer. See here Shushugah (talk) 16:39, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

We need to parse the dissents, not post them wholesale, unless we see that being done in third-party sources; otherwise we should focus on the statements that third-party sources pull from the decision to avoid some degree of OR. I haven't had a chance to review post-decision material to find what to pull yet. --Masem (t) 16:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain what policy or stylist issue there is with quoting a Justice, if it's brief? It doesn't give them encyclopaedic weight. I'm all for including more sources/annotation. Here is Fortune news link about Sotomayor's dissent: Fortune — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shushugah (talk • contribs) 17:00, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

At least with Sotomayor's very strong dissent, and that this is a current area within a controvesial topic (stuff related to Trump), we want to avoid constructing a false sense of what Sotomayor's rather long dissent is by pulling out quotes we selected ourselves. Just looking through, I could see a lot of quotes that, if one wanted to be super critical of Trump himself, justify their inclusion. It is better to use what third-parties focus on as the sound bites that highlight the decision, so that we ourselves are not deciding what quotes to pull - it keeps us out of OR as well as NPOV as long as we address all the key dissents. And to point out, I have actually added from that for Sotomayor, and added one for Breyer's too. --Masem (t) 17:19, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, am new to wikipedia including annotating law cases. Am learning a lot from yours and other edits 👌 Shushugah (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Korematsu

Giving an direct statement that this decision did not explicitly overturn Korematsu is problematic, two-fold. First, the reason just stated in the revert was that if we don't people will put it in the infobox. Do we really want to be drafting articles based on what we fear a random editor might do to the infobox? That is a terrible basis for editorial decisions. More important though is whether it is even an authentic representation of the state of things. I can turn up a dozen references from the past week, all WP:RS, that say Trump v Hawaii overturned/overruled Korematsu. That makes it very hard to justify excluding all of these and instead cherry-picking the one source we can find that says otherwise. I realize this person is a legal scholar, and so more credible than the average news reporter, but still it is just one person's opinion, and it is directly contradicted by Sotomayor's own words in the dissent, who herself has to be viewed as having a degree of credibility when it comes to interpreting what the Supreme Court has done. How is this not giving WP:UNDUE weight to one source? The fact of the matter is that it is going to take more than a week for a consensus to develop, and we are fooling ourselves (and our readers) if we take one lone legal scholar's immediate reaction as if it represented an established fact or consensus among the legal community. We could just as well state the exact opposite, citing numerous sources, and ignore the one source leading to this conclusion, and it would be equally valid (and hence equally invalid). Agricolae (talk) 02:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

This case appears to have done everything possible to overturn Korematsu without an internment camp in place or a war to use as justification. That said... in some sense, that still makes the statements regarding Korematsu dicta. The facts aren't extremely similar. You could change the strict scrutiny standard in general, but that's not the problem. The problem is the application of strict scrutiny to those particular facts, and for those reasons, you really need an internment camp in wartime to kill it once and for all. The majority and dissent disagree on whether it supports or repudiates Korematsu at all.

Then again... You'd have to be a real dumbass to cite Korematsu favorably these days. That, or President, one of the two. Daniel J. Hakimi (talk) 20:07, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Basically, to me, it comes down to the fact that the summary of the slip opinion does not explicitly say "Korematsu is overturned" (in contrast, looking at Janus, its opinion specifically concludes that Abood is overturned [1], but as to the point above, because the decision of Abood specifically applied to this case. Korematsu did not directly apply to this case, so they likely have no place to overturn it. (Korematsu was only brought up because the dissents made reference to it, so they were saying that trying to hang any future decision on Korematsu is really really a bad idea; if they had a case that would even touch the salient points of Korematsu, they'd likely overturn it in a heartbeat. --Masem (t) 20:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Here is where things get tricky. We can sit here and reason out that almost all of the reliable sources that say it was overturned are wrong, and this one source that says it wasn't really is right, but that really isn't how Wikipedia is supposed to work. We have certainly not seen the last legal scholarship to be written about Korematsu. It is from the body of this post hoc analysis that will come the established consensus of the legal community over what exactly, legally, the SC did to Korematsu, but even if we are pretty sure what that will be, right now it is hard to justify in a manner consistent with policy taking all of the sources that say it was overturned or overruled and throwing them out so we can cherry-pick the one source that agrees with our own conclusion, when the simple alternative is to say it was repudiated or something similar, which though not using the precise legalistic term that we think is wrong still gets the point across. Agricolae (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

It all comes down to an understanding of the law. Obiter dictum is not binding although it is arguably persuasive. The issue of whether to overrule Korematsu simply was not before the court, and it had no grounds to revisit the question. Sotomayor made the comparison. The court rejected that comparison while simply noting that those joining the opinion felt that Korematsu was wrong and rejected by a "court of history" as opposed to a court of law. The sources you cite are second hand and not ideal for a scholarly endeavor. I think it might be more appropriate to leave it as "limited or questioned by or criticized" rather than "overruled" and then explain in the text the debate (i.e. some media outlets report Korematsu was overruled; however, some scholars suggest that the language was dicta and not binding). P.S. Dissents carry no precedential force either and are only persuasive at best. What matters in the majority opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:133A:3500:CD5B:83E4:BDAC:E144 (talk) 07:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Just because a past case wasn't before the court doesn't mean they can't go back and overrule it, if they feel that the case's decision interferes with the decision in the current case. This is arguably what some of the conservative Justices want with an abortion case to overturn Roe v. Wade, for example. Further, most RSs considered this case as having overturned Korematsu from the decision, so we really can't read beyond that. --Masem (t) 13:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusing

I find this article confusing. The issues are complicated and connected in ways that are difficult to untangle. The article should be augmented with clear explanations of all the issues, how they were decided, who took what position on each component, and why. ---Dagme (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)