Talk:Chiafalo v. Washington

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of the discussion was merge. Strong consensus to merge the pages given the significant content overlap, with distinctions between the two cases to be clearly discussed on the merged page. Mdewman6 (talk) 18:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

---

I propose to merge Colorado Department of State v. Baca with this page. Though un-consolidated, the two cases were ultimately decided in essence together, with the per curiam decision in Baca simply referring to Chiafalo. So therefore I think both cases can be described in a single article. There is a lot of verbatim overlap in the two articles. Each case's history would be kept as separate sections, and any differences between the cases would be clearly indicated. Mdewman6 (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support I would agree. It is easy to discuss both cases' history as one and explain why they were treated separately. It might mean a separate infobox for Baca to list out the per curiam but that would be easy to do. No source (outside of the local ones) are treating these as separate. --Masem (t) 19:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Support The two cases were basically accepted together for the same reason...Veryproicelandic (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
• Strong support: The text of the opinion in Colorado Department of State v. Baca simply reads:

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit is reversed for the reasons stated in Chiafalo v. Washington, ante, p. ___.

It is so ordered.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR took no part in the decision of this case.

JUSTICE THOMAS concurs in the judgment for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Chiafalo v. Washington, ante, p. ___.

That's basically the Supreme Court supporting a merger. The only reason the Supreme Court even made this separate sheet is that Sotomayor needed to recuse herself in Colorado Department of State v. Baca (but not in Chiafalo v. Washington). OCNative (talk) 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support There might be circumstances where consolidated SCOTUS cases are distinct enough to support maintaining separate articles, but the facts of these two cases are basically the same, and I agree that Sotomayor's recusal seems to be the only reason they weren't consolidated. Think long term - Chiafalo is the precedent. In the long run, Baca will be a footnote. Supreme Court cases are noteworthy primarily because of the rules of law they establish, and Baca is a one-line per curiam opinion. It's not noteworthy on its own. LegalSkeptic (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: The cases were not consolidated. Kart2401real (talk) 00:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I understand the cases weren't consolidated. As I see it, the issue is less about whether the cases were formally consolidated and more about what the legal significance is. Given that Chiafalo was the case that generated a substantive, precedential opinion, it's the case that establishes a legal principle. The outcome of Baca is basically "see Chiafalo." To be fair, there are precedents for having separate articles even where cases are consolidated, like Obergefell v. Hodges and Bourke v. Beshear. Honestly, my preference would be to always merge these cases, but I understand there isn't a consensus to support that. LegalSkeptic (talk) 02:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Commentators have raised some significant questions regarding how the Baca opinion fits in, such as why Gorsuch didn't also partially join Thomas in it as well, or how the Court didn't address the mootness/standing issues specific to that case (or found that there were any), and didn't address at all any constitutional distinctions between the two state laws with regard to enforcement mechanism (as Alanscottwalker alluded to below) which are potentially quite profound. I think a combined page can actually discuss these issues better than separate pages. Mdewman6 (talk) 03:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

• Support - cases had same facts and will be historically seen as related. Baca will be a footnote. Neutrality^talk 00:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  Neutrality, Just to be clear the cases did not have the same facts, the enforcement was markedly different in the two states, but they did involve the same constitutional principles. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Support Per above. Can be discussed individually and as a pair in a single article to reduce duplication and provide readers with the most connected context. Reywas92^Talk 01:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thomas's concurrence

JocularJellyfish has reverted my reversion of his edit specifying that Thomas concurred "in judgment" in Chiafalo without any explanation. Articles for other Supreme Court cases do not qualify or further explain normal concurring opinions in the infobox. In Chiafalo Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Gorsuch. In Baca Thomas did not file a separate concurring opinion (nor was there really a majority opinion), he simply concurred in the judgment for his reasons outlined in his opinion in Chiafalo. This is why there is a qualifying, explanatory statement regarding his concurrence in the Baca infobox; perhaps this is the source of confusion here. There is no need to state that Thomas concurred "in judgment" in Chiafalo. JocularJellyfish, can you explain your goal with this edit here? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:03, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Not to speak for JJ here, but if we go to the slip opinion, the summary of the Justices' alignment on the decision is summarized as "KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and GINSBURG, BREYER, ALITO, SOTOMAYOR, GORSUCH, and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined as to Part II." To contrast, Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc. as an example, there is a difference between a simple separate concurrence with the whole opinion, and a concurrence with only the judgement, as outlined in the Slip opinion ("ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment.") So it is completely fair that as long as the slip opinion syllabus lists this, this distinction can be included in the infobox. --Masem (t) 01:16, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this distinction needs to be made, and I don't believe this distinction is consistently articulated as such in the infoboxes for other cases, but if there is a desire to have it here I am okay with it. To me, concurring in the judgment is a prerequisite for a concurrence that does not need to be stated, as it is true whether the justice reached the same judgment for completely different reasons and rejected those of the majority or whether they wish to simply emphasize or elaborate on a certain aspect of the case or explore other issues. It seems to me this distinction is usually indicated by whether a concurring justice joins the majority opinion in full, in part, or not at all. On the other hand, as you say, if the opinion words it as such, perhaps it is intended to mean something. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I should be clear: your standard concurrence means that the Justice that wrote it (and any that join it) concurrent both in the judgement and the opinion. If nothing is stated this should be taken as default and we don't need to state anything else. There are handful of cases that a Justice joins in the judgement -the court made the right call - but disagree with the reasons for that call, and for that they only join in concurrence on judgement, and that's where I think its right to id that, as well as the cases where they concurrent in only part of the majority opinion, etc. eg. EG summarizing that last part of the slip's syllabus is right. --Masem (t) 02:00, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow. "Concurrence" just means the justice wrote a separate opinion that is consistent with the position (judgment) of the majority. Whether or not they agree with the reasoning of the majority is a separate issue indicated by whether or not they join that opinion and to what extent (only to certain parts or in full). Or maybe I am oversimplifying things? Mdewman6 (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I would think the "default" or more common form of concurrence arises when a justice's point of view does not garner a majority, they are not persuaded by the majority's arguments, but nevertheless reach the same judgment. Thus, it is analogous to a dissent, just that for a concurrence they end up with the same judgment. Cases where members of the majority choose to also write separately are more rare I would imagine. Mdewman6 (talk) 06:55, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

If a Justice writes a concurrence and it is not qualified in the syllabus as "only in judgement", it is assumed to mean that it broadly agrees both in the judgement (whether the lower court opinion they reviewed is upheld, reversed, or vacated). There might be small things the concurrence may have disagreements on but they will agree on the broad legal basis of the majority opinion. When an "only in judgement" part is on a concurrence, that means they agree with the upheld/reversed/vacated part, but not how the majority arrived at that decision. Hypothetically, the majority may have found on a 1st Amendment basis, while the concurrence, only in judgement, found that the legal argument based on a Due Process approach was sufficient. The next result of the court is still the same - the concurrence's joining on the judgement contributes to the majority, but this can impact later use of that case as case law. (Obviously, if a Justice disagrees with the upheld/reversed/vacated part, that's a dissent, flat out). --Masem (t) 13:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Okay, well if there really is a distinction then I defer to you and others about specifying it in the infobox, as long as all articles are treated consistently. Thanks for the discussion! Mdewman6 (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: My apologies for any confusion I might've caused. I was editing pages quickly and didn't catch that I had previously made the change and that it had been reverted. I made the change originally to make it clear to readers that Thomas did not join the reasoning of the majority opinion, but did agree with the ultimate outcome and wrote a concurrence in the judgment. Unlike the case of Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue, where Thomas both joined the majority opinion and wrote a concurrence, he did not join the majority opinion in Chiafalo. While this is a subtle distinction, I believe it bears noting on article pages, especially given that the Supreme Court's syllabus lists it as well. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I understand. Elaborating on my reply above (written before I saw your reply here), isn't the distinction indicated by whether or not the concurring justice joins the majority opinion? Do we need to make this distinction in the infobox? If you are making a comprehensive effort to treat all case articles accordingly, I guess I'm fine with that if there is consensus to do so. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Mdewman6: I am not aware of an established consensus for the change but a decent number of articles already featured it before I began modifying others in the past few weeks to fit in as well. The goal is for every applicable article to have the note. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 02:05, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: That sounds fine to me. Thanks! Mdewman6 (talk) 05:06, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Citation

Someone should update the citation for this case. It’s been three years. The page number should be known Skysong263 (talk) 13:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)