Talk:Department of Commerce v. New York

This article follows the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Legal. It uses the Bluebook legal referencing style. This citation style uses standardized abbreviations, such as "N.Y. Times" for The New York Times. Please review those standards before making style or formatting changes. Information on this referencing style may be obtained at: Cornell's Basic Legal Citation site.

U.S. Supreme Court cases

	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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

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.

Hofeller documents belong in the lede

The SC case is about the addition of the citizenship question to the census, and Hofeller played a crucial part in the addition of the question to the census (per RS), as well as in producing a legal rationale for it. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We dont know how the Court will use that. The only direct legal connection so far to this is the post-May 30th filing by ACLU that highlights these discovered documents to the Court. If the Court takes those documents into consideration, then that's lede material. Right now, its better to discuss that issue on the 2020 Census page which has a section broadly about the question. --Masem (t) 15:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the SC's use of these hard drives is relevant. If the SC straight-up ignores the documents, they become even more relevant, as they clearly show malicious intent behind the addition of the census question. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First, the exact connection from what Hofeller said and the question is not 100% confirmed, though highly significant if it is true. But even in this situation, this page is about one of the legal challenges, and not the overall controversy, which is better documetned on the Census 2020 page. We have no idea how the Court will use this. As it is "new" information that hasn't been legally scrutinized, they may not consider it (they can only rule over material presented from lower courts otherwise they are making law, which they cannot do). It is worth the mention as I have that this came up and was introduced after oral arguments but before the decision so at this point, its more a curiosity with no obvious importance yet to how SCOTUS will rule. If it drastically changes something, then its lede material. --Masem (t) 16:13, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Final result

Seems like the article should mention that the citizenship question was ultimately blocked by the courts. I'm having trouble finding a simple news report of that, though. Powers ^T 15:36, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if it was or not. The Court Listener link for the case at the district court still seems active. [1] shows activity on it as late as this last week. Looking around though. --Masem (t) 16:13, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to digest but this [2] is the critical order out of Furman's court following SCOTUS that orders the question off the census. Now can work from that... --Masem (t) 16:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And got it from The Hill. Will add shortly. --Masem (t) 16:21, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]