Talk:Trump v. Barbara

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reference to Justice's Religion

I notice there is a mention of the religious convictions of justices. How is this relevant to the article? B1uzie (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2026 (UTC)

I see that you removed the information. I don't necessarily disagree, but I think the relevance is that it may partly explain the amicus brief of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. As a side note, that lengthy quote from the Bishops' amicus brief may be undue given that there's no reliable secondary source cited. If that lengthy quote is going to stay in, then noting the presence of several Catholic justices on the Court does seem relevant. Interesting question. I'm curious what others think. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 03:42, 7 March 2026 (UTC)
Yes I removed it because I didn't see particular relevance. I appreciate your context however. I think that if we were talking about that particular point, that if it had a section discussing that relevance maybe it would work, however that would be in dangerously close territory to the rule on not editorializing. I felt at the time when I removed it, it seemed like a thing to mention so as to call out a fact in a non-nonpartisan way if you catch my meaning. therefore I felt that it was safe to cut and leave to the subject of other pages and keep this one clean in regard to the facts of the case and what that involved. B1uzie (talk) 01:28, 10 March 2026 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable, thank you. I suspect there are reliable sources out there that have discussed the Bishops' amicus brief. Jameson Nightowl (talk) 01:23, 11 March 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for the discussion folks - sorry I wasn't here to represent myself, I was the author who contributed most to expanding that section. I did indeed include the brief from the USCCB and the note about those justices' communion in the Catholic church for the reasons you identified: the USCCB has issued several dozen amicus briefs since the court began accepting them, but the majority have not cited to scripture and canon law as often as the one cited here, and it's still relatively rare for them to do so on issues not pertaining to contraception or religious freedom.
Totally fine with leaving the justices' Catholic faith out of the piece, but I'd argue it deserves inclusion more than the quote from the brief does. The quote from the brief is only there to explain the more explicit connections the brief makes between birthright citizenship and Catholic doctrine; it's there for flavor, not because it enriches our understanding of Trump v Barbara.
Meanwhile, there IS some pertinence to the religious leanings of 6 of 9 justices; the USCCB has historically been a very conservative conference. This out-of-character brief follows the election of the first American Pope, one who spent his ecclesiastical career in South America, a region where birthright citizenship is common, and who has rebuked the current administration, in part for their conduct in enforcing immigration law. Added together, it suggests that Pope Leo XIV is conscious that the justices are members of his communion and this brief may not issue from the USCCB alone but have been written with some imprimatur.
In light of the above, would love your proposals for what belongs here and doesn't. Canofpeaches (talk) 00:31, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Amici curiea

Please avoid citing the amicus briefs directly. With about 60 total responses, it is not our place to document those based solely on the presence in the SCOTUS case history. In this specific case, it should be very easy to find third-party or secondary sources that discuss who has written and in support of which side. I've dropped an example from SCOTUSBlog for those supporting Trump's side. We certainly do not want to be quoting from these as well (eg the huge section on Cato's replay is not appropriate). I dont have the time to manage these all now, but these will need to be trimmed or replaced appropriately. That said, there's also plenty of sources that discuss Trump's argument as well as the counterargument that we can also quote from third-party and secondary reliable sources (many published in the last week). Masem (t) 02:24, 30 March 2026 (UTC)

to add, the same applies to quoting from today's decision. We aren't legal experts as editors of wp, and to avoid original research and quotes should be pulled ftom third party sources that provide the quotes or descriptions. This should not be hard given the volume of coverage just today. Once you include a quote is it fair yo also add its place in the actual decision alongside the third party source, though. Masem (t) 20:17, 30 June 2026 (UTC)

Landmark decision

I feel like the describing this decision as a landmark one isn’t accurate. Firstly, it doesn’t really meet the criteria for a landmark decision, which is:

  • establishing a new legal principle or concept;
  • overturning precedent based on its harmful effects or flaws in its reasoning;
  • distinguishing a new principle that refines an existing principle, thus departing from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis;
  • establishing a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions.

Secondly, the cited source isn’t the most helpful here. It uses the word landmark a couple times but either than that doesn’t really explain how the case itself is a landmark decision. I believe it may be a little too soon to describe it as a landmark decision. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 07:30, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, there's no formal clearly defined criteria for what makes a case landmark. A landmark case could very well be any of the ones you mentioned but I don't think it's strictly limited to that. This case has major constitutional significance. That's a big one. It is also one of the most anticipated decisions of the year. It has a relatively large social impact in that it affects millions, or more narrowly hundreds of thousands, of people a year. ~2026-37775-18 (talk) 08:32, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I don't think the case has any true "major constitutional significance". The decision ultimately continued the standard principle of birthright citizenship that had been present for the last 150 years. Had it overturned the principles of Wong Kim Ark, or resulted in some carve out regarding temporary visitors, then I'd agree. Otherwise virtually any case before the Supreme Court which had an opposing side arguing to overturn a precedent, and ended up failing to doing so, would be considered a 'Landmark' case. LosPajaros (talk) 18:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I would say that the case counts as a landmark case in my opinion. The reasoning being that it's a major case affecting so many people who were born in the U.S. to undocumented immigrants. The "undocumented = not under the jurisdiction of the U.S." argument has been repeated by the Trump administration so many times over many years that I'd say it counts as a major thing when that argument is struck down for good. Violetshine(SkC) (meow) 10:29, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
It does explain: the new legal principle or concept is that the Citizenship Clause turns on territorial sovereign jurisdiction over the child at birth, not on domicile, with specific exceptions regarding allegiance. It doesn't seem new because it had been effectively understood in a way like this, only implicitly, but Gorsuch and Thomas wrote otherwise; so it could have been otherwise. Its newness is in this reasoning and its explicit constitutional basis, as Kavanaugh acknowledged. MONTENSEM (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
The majority also cited common law, statute, and precedent, according to the current source for the landmark decision claim (https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/supreme-court-strikes-down-trumps-birthright-citizenship-executive-order-in-landmark-decision). Charitably, the current source does explain what is conceptually, if not effectively, new: this view of the Fourteenth Amendment (per Gorsuch). More and better sources would be an improvement, I'd say, but we shouldn't be reasoning against the current source absent an opposing source that says it is not landmark. MONTENSEM (talk) 12:07, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
We need sources to decide that for us, we are not legal experts to be able to judge that. The fact this maintains the expected status quo from the 14th and the other previous is a good reason it is likely not landmark. Masem (t) 11:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
BBC calls it a landmark decision, but other than that, I couldn't find any other outlets describing it as such. For me, this fact, and considering that this is just a reaffirmation of an article of the U.S. constitution, it looks like this isn't a landmark decision. If it was, by the same logic, so should Chiafalo v. Washington Oakchris1955 (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
we really need multiple sources and ideally more from legal analysts than news coverage to make the call. Masem (t) 12:54, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Some Court decisions are landmarks because they further settle constitutional law questions with major or historical political implications, even when the legal reasoning is widely criticized, aligned with the status quo, or both, like Dred Scott. There are others in the "anticanon".
More sources for "landmark decision" or "landmark ruling":
Sources for "landmark case":
MONTENSEM (talk) 15:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
that should be sufficient but I would make sure to add context in an Analysis section with those (but not Fox, they aren't RS). As long as you source it there it doesnt need sourcing in lede. Masem (t) 16:25, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
yes, an analysis section explaining why it’s a landmark decision would help with the reasoning a lot here. OrbitalVoid49 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
Legal analysts at the ACLU and Jurist.org have also described it as a landmark decision already. It is consequential because it clearly established that the principle in Wong Kim Ark applies to undocumented immigrants and visitors and settled the question of who is "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States
https://www.jurist.org/news/2026/06/us-supreme-court-rejects-trump-executive-order-limiting-birthright-citizenship/ Kawashika (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
As the filer of the original case, the ACLU can hardly be considered an independent source. ~2026-27607-47 (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
"Landmark" has been noted as a "puffery" word to watch, having been boldy added by User:Bishonen in May 2013. I suggest that the general principle applicable to puffery terms applies: facts, attribution, and the unfolding of events over time can establish the importance of the ruling without having to directly say it, and thereby give Wikipedia's editorial stamp to organizations that favored the outcome or news agencies eager to promote the news. Wikipedia has an article on Landmark decision that provides views and sources on what makes a decision a landmark. One might compare with Somerset v Stewart, a case that, like this one and Dred Scott, dealt with rights in the context of movement across borders; in which a party also asked the court to recognize a principle outside of positive law and was unsuccessful. It's a famous case in the history of slavery abolition, yet the article does not introduce it as a "landmark", and doesn't need to because the article body amply elaborates its importance. ~2026-27607-47 (talk) 17:55, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
I admire this but it feels very Wikipedia-normative (editorial) rather than source-based in a way that becomes challenging when writing about what are in essence (views of) norms. MONTENSEM (talk) 20:02, 1 July 2026 (UTC)
It's quite the opposite. If the case is a landmark, it is neither necessary nor urgent to say so, nor to argue so. Describing its immediate and future effects will suffice. ~2026-27607-47 (talk) 20:44, 1 July 2026 (UTC)

Related Articles

Wikiwand AI