Talk:Trump v. CASA
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Trump v. CASA article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
_(3x4_close_cropped).jpg)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (center, color, defense, realize, traveled) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
"will determine the constitutionality of Executive Order 14160"
editAs far as I'm aware, this case might address the underlying constitutionality but it's primarily about nationwide injunctions, using the nationwide injunction against enforcement of this order as an example. Example sources: VOX, NBC, SCOUTUSblog. I'm editing the article to correct this, but let me know if I missed something. satkara❈talk 17:37, 14 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hadn't seen this until just now. The Supreme Court will cover birthright citizenship tomorrow. It will not solely be about nationwide injunctions. elijahpepe@wikipedia (he/him) 05:16, 15 May 2025 (UTC)
Landmark decision?
editShould this Supreme Court case be added to the List of landmark court decisions in the United States? Full disclosure: I’m not a lawyer and don’t fully understand the ruling’s impact, but given how much it’s being discussed, it seems significant. I thought it might be worth bringing up for community input and consensus. —2605:4A80:740A:1AB0:C82F:85A7:50B0:10B5 (talk) 22:51, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
- It's better to wait for reliable sources that aren't reporting on it as breaking news to describe it as "landmark", since news will sometimes use that term excessively (whereas expert scholarship, which is slower to release, tends to be more considered in saying it). I see that the WSJ Editorial Board has called it "landmark" , but most sources aren't currently using the term. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 00:27, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
- I think it should be a landmark, but agree with silverlocust that we should wait for more analysis and RSs describing it as such. I guess there's the potential, like Kavanaugh and Alito suggest, that class actions will result in a functionally similar situation, but it's still a big change in process. satkara❈talk 05:40, 28 June 2025 (UTC)
History of universal injunctions
editI propose that the "Background" section include some material taken from the "Nationwide injunction" article, clarifying that such injunctions have been used for decades and were not blocked by the Supreme Court prior to this decision. Ishboyfay (talk) 18:34, 11 July 2025 (UTC)