Template:Did you know nominations/Niz-Chavez v. Garland
- The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was: promoted by Theleekycauldron (talk) 22:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
| DYK toolbox |
|---|
Niz-Chavez v. Garland
Justices Gorsuch, Kennedy, and Kavanaugh
- ... that a U.S. Supreme Court case was called Groundhog Day? Source: "Gorsuch expressed frustration at the fact that the court was even hearing this case, calling it 'Pereira Groundhog Day' – suggesting that the court had essentially answered these questions in its prior decision." Argument analysis: Justices revisit immigration notice provision, parsing statutory text while urging practical solutions
- ALT1: ... that a decided a U.S. Supreme Court case? Source: "An unusual coalition of Supreme Court justices joined Thursday to rule in favor of an immigrant fighting deportation in a case that the court said turned on the meaning of the shortest word, 'a.'" An unusual coalition as Supreme Court rules for immigrant
- ALT2: ... that the shortest word decided a U.S. Supreme Court case? Source: See ALT1
- ALT3: ... that a single letter decided a U.S. Supreme Court case? Source: "The decision came down to a one-letter word." Neil Gorsuch's Persnickety Libertarianism Gave Immigrants a Win at the Supreme Court
- ALT4: ... that the opposing justices in Niz-Chavez v. Garland (pictured) were appointed by Trump, clerked for the same justice, and attended the same school? Source: "Justice Brett Kavanaugh — an appointee of President Donald Trump along with Gorsuch and Barrett ... It wasn’t the first time the two former law clerks to now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy and alumni of Georgetown Preparatory School in suburban Maryland have been on opposite sides of a case." An unusual coalition as Supreme Court rules for immigrant
- ALT5: ... that a U.S. Supreme Court case had "odd bedfellows"? Source: "The case is extremely technical concerning immigration procedures and the interpretation of a sentence in immigration law, but the opinion produced odd bedfellows as the justices quibbled over statutory interpretation and opened fissures related to how closely the court should rely on the exact text of a statute when interpreting the law." Gorsuch's textualism gives immigrant a chance to challenge deportation
- ALT6: ... that immigration case Niz-Chavez v. Garland was compared to a landmark LGBT rights case? Source: "Last term, Gorsuch stunned conservatives when he once again relied on his view of textualism to rule in favor of LGBT workers." Gorsuch's textualism gives immigrant a chance to challenge deportation
- Comment: A boring case, but interesting for grammar geeks and effectively became notable because of that. I'm aware of how ALT0 may be considered misleading, but I think it's misleading in a hooky manner. The letter a is in italics because of the Manual of Style. ALTs1–3 are effectively the same hook but with different wording; of the three I think ALT1 is the most confusing and may be the most attractive (hooky), but I may be wrong. No firm favourite on which hook is best yet.
Moved to mainspace by Sdrqaz (talk). Self-nominated at 12:57, 25 October 2021 (UTC).
Article length and age fine, no QPQ needed. Sources are reliable. Earwig's lighting up, but that seems to be because of the quotes used in the article. I prefer ALT3, but all of the hooks look hooky enough. AryKun (talk) 13:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Well, that was quick: didn't even take 40 minutes. Looks like this is going to beat The Man Who Died Twice to the Main Page despite being nominated two weeks before. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:58, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
