Talk:California v. Texas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California v. Texas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

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.

United States: Government Start‑class Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Mid-importance).

U.S. Supreme Court cases Top‑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
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Taxation (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Taxation, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.TaxationWikipedia:WikiProject TaxationTemplate:WikiProject TaxationTaxation articles

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Consolidated with Texas v. California

Hi. It looks like, somewhat confusingly, there are two different cases being consolidated here (source):

19-840 — California, et al. v. Texas, et al.
19-1019 — Texas, et al. v. California, et al.

My reading of <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-840.html> is that 19-840 (California v. Texas) is the head case now ("Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-840."). Consequently, I've made Texas v. California a redirect to this article. There are older cases named California v. Texas (volumes 437 and 457) that we'll need to disambiguate. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think I addressed this in third-party sources. the TX v CA is Texas et al asking the court (in Feb 2020) to not take up CA et al.'s case (filed in Jan 2020) as not ripe, but if they took it up, they provided some questions to ask. Because they presented a full petition of writ of cert rather than just a brief, it comes up as looks like two cases consolidated as one, but more exacting, just two petitions consolidated as one. --Masem (t) 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

tense

Should this open with "California v. Texas is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt…"? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Technically yes, the case is open as it was remanded back to the 5th, but given that the ruling was that Texas et al had no basis to bring the suit to bear in the first place, that basically rules this case closed, so past tense is appropriate. --Masem (t) 21:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Missing word makes a sentence meaningless

In the sentence, "The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but it that the mandate might be severable from the rest of the ACA", there is a word missing between "but it" and "that the mandate might be severable". I think it should be "disagreed", but I am reluctant to change it based just on gut feeling. Can somebody with the requisite knowledge fix it, please? 2001:BB6:4713:4858:C900:3058:315E:DAB6 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. --Masem (t) 13:40, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]