Talk:Heffernan v. City of Paterson

DYK Hook, GA nom, looking towards FA

@Neutrality and Daniel Case: You both seem to have put a lot of work into this article too, so I'm looking for your input. We have a day or two more to submit a WP:DYK nomination, and if either of you have any ideas for a hook, I'd love to hear them. I could do the cliche "Supreme Court ruled in Heffernan that..." but if you think there are more interesting facts of the case, let me know. I will probably nominate this for Good Article status in the coming days as well. Finally, I think that, with both of your additions, this article is well on its way to FA status. We should look into what improvements should be made before then and work to get the article in line with all the various MOS pages. You both really have done a great job, and I hope we can all get our work recognized. Wugapodes (talk) 17:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

If you do nominate this for GA, I would be happy to review it. I should note, however, that it will be important to include a section about analysis and commentary, and you will ultimately want to use a consistent citation style. I strongly encourage you to utilize Bluebook style. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:58, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries; I haven't written about a SCOTUS decision in a while but in the past I have written bunches; I picked up on this one because I wrote about a bunch of other ones in this area (Connick v. Meyers, Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle and Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, among others). I went back because this was the first case in this line to have to consider the Waters v. Churchill precedent of how to handle a factual dispute about the nature of the speech. I have plenty of experience with Bluebook citations.

As for a DYK hook (another area where I have plenty of experience), I would consider:

• ... that the U.S. Supreme Court recently held in Heffernan v. City of Paterson that a public employer violates the First Amendment even when it mistakenly disciplines an employee for political activity?
• ... that when Paterson, New Jersey, police detective Kevin Heffernan picked up a campaign sign for his sick mother in 2005, it started a dispute that was resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court only this year?
• ... that three different U.S. federal district judges heard Heffernan v. City of Paterson, recently decided by the U.S. Supreme Court?

As for analysis and commentary, it would probably be a fairly thin section for now as the sort of in-depth analysis and commentary will not come until people write law review articles on the case. So for now we'll probably have to rely on hot reads from legal pundits (which, granted, is easier to research and cite). Daniel Case (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I really like your suggestions for DYK hooks. I also agree that at this point there won't be much in terms of scholarly analysis, but there is plenty of early commentary that will be important to include (I think it is an important component of the breadth requirement for the Good Article Criteria). See, for example, this article in The Economist, this analysis from SCOTUSblog, and this commentary from the National Law Review. Also, The New Yorker had some interesting commentary about the case, but it was published back in January. Let me know if I can be of help finding sources, and I look forward to reading this article again when it is nominated for GA status! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I liked the hooks so much I nominated them! And one's headed for the main page in a few days so congrats on that. I added some commentary that Notecardforfree linked. I did not use the SCOTUSblog or National Law Review articles since they really seemed more like recaps of the case rather than commentary. If anyone thinks they can integrate them in though, feel free! I also added in this National Constitution Center blog post which has some interesting commentary. I'm pretty sure it falls under WP:NEWSBLOG but what are your opinions on the reliability of the source?

Looking forward: Has anyone found any negative commentary or opinions that could be added? This Breitbart article has a dissenting tinge from its discussion of the dissents but never outright says anything critical of the decision. Also, I think the opinion coverage is sufficient for GA but looking at it again in light of some of these commentaries, I think it will need to be expanded before FA. I'm going to try and learn Bluebook to make these citations consistent (I used {{cite web}} since there's no template to cite websites in bluebook style), but if anyone here knows it better and want to be bold I won't complain. Wugapodes (talk) 06:06, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Rivera

"Heffernan sued the city, Rivera, and his superior officers ..." Who is Rivera? This is the only time that name comes up in this article. Concrete Cloverleaf (talk) 02:37, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure; there are no named defendant's with the name "Rivera," as far as I can tell. Perhaps the authors meant Jose "Joey" Torres, who is the City's manager? -- Notecardforfree (talk) 02:47, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the name in the district decision, so I removed it and changed it to "the mayor". It might be in the complaint, but I don't think so since the name doesn't appear in any of the decisions. Wugapodes (talk) 15:26, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Heffernan v. City of Paterson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Notecardforfree (talk · contribs) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary comments

I will be completing this review over the course of this weekend, but I want to begin with a few preliminary comments:

• I already reviewed this article for its DYK nomination, and I think this is generally in good shape for passing the GA review as well.
• I am excited to see that the article is using Bluebook style citations! Many thanks to Wugapodes for their efforts creating Bluebook style templates. However, the case title should not be in Bold text; rather, bluebook requires that case titles be underlined or italicized (in articles, they should generally be italicized). This is not a GA requirement, but I thought I should let you know.

Look for a complete review later this weekend. Thanks so much for your efforts to improve this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:06, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The bolding was an issue with {{Ussc}}, it has been fixed. Wugapodes (talk) 00:10, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Full review

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	For the most part, the article is clear, precise, and well-written. However, see my comments for portions of the article that still require clarification. All issues have been resolved.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	This article complies with relevant portions of WP:MOS. However, see my comments below for a suggestion about the ellipse in the block quotation that appears in the "Opinion of the Court" section.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.	See below in the comments section for passages in which citations require clarification. All issues relating to citations have been resolved.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	The author utilizes reliable sources. No issues here.
	2c. it contains no original research.	No concerns about original research.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.	Excellent work expanding this article. I think this article's coverage of this topic is sufficiently broad for the purposes of the GA Criteria.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).	This article does not lose focus.
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.	I don't think there are any problems with neutrality. However, as discussed in further detail below, you should add commentary that is critical of the Court's opinion if you can find any.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	There have been no conflicts with respect to this article's content.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.	This article makes good use of images and there are no issues with copyright, etc.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images and their captions are appropriate.
	7. Overall assessment.	See comments below for a few issues that should be resolved before this article is promoted. This article satisfies all GA criteria. Congratulations!

Comments from Notecardforfree

My apologies for not returning to this review sooner. My in-laws came to visit for Mother's Day and I've been swamped with work this week. In any event, I think this is a very nice article and an excellent addition to the encyclopedia. I think it is very close to being ready for promotion to GA status, but I have highlighted a few issues that should be resolved first:

Lead

• In the lead, you state that "The court reversed an earlier holding to the contrary by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals." I assume you are talking about Ambrose v. Robinson Township. However, I don't think Justice Breyer's opinion ever explicitly stated that Ambrose was no longer good law (in fact, Ambrose is only mentioned once, in a parenthetical citation on page three of Justice Breyer's opinion). I agree that Ambrose likely holds little weight after Heffernan, but because SCOTUS did not explicitly disapprove of the case (and because it may be distinguishable on other grounds), we probably shouldn't say that SCOTUS "reversed" the case.

Done Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• Also in the lead, you say that Heffernan "picked up a lawn sign for the candidate challenging the city's incumbent mayor in the 2005 election ...." Do you think there is any danger that readers may think that Heffernan was picking the sign up off the ground (rather than collecting it at a distribution center)? If you think there is little chance for confusion, then I would keep it as-is.

Done Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

History

• The first two sentences of this sections state: "The case took a decade to reach the Supreme Court. For most of that time it was in federal district court, where it was heard by three different judges." At the end of that paragraph, you provide a citation to the Third Circuit's opinion. However, that opinion says nothing about the length of time it took for the case to reach SCOTUS, that it was in district court most of that time, or that the case was heard by three judges. Can you provide citations to substantiate these three pieces of information?

Not Done. This seems like simple math and common sense here. The dispute started in 2005, it got to SCOTUS in 2015. It was in the district court from 2005 until 2014 (with some Third Circuit action in between) which I think anyone would describe as "most". We describe the three different judges, each of which has a citation. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. My concern would simply be that readers who are unfamiliar with the way cases work may expect to find all of this information in the the Third Circuit's opinion, though the logic in your comment is sound (it really is common sense). -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:31, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• When discussing Heffernan's demotion, is it worth mentioning that he was demoted to a "walking post?" Right now, the article says that he was demoted to a "patrol" position, but I'm not sure that "waking post post" is synonymous with a "patrol" position.

Not Done (yet). I think I saw a source that called it a patrol position. I'll try and find it and if not switch it. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

It is possible that a "patrol" position is synonymous with a "walking post," though when I think of police officers "patrolling," I envision officers driving around in police cruisers. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• In the paragraph that begins with "Judge Cavanaugh granted summary judgment ...." you say that the Third Circuit remanded the case "with instructions to allow Heffernan to present his freedom of association claim and consider the facts from the jury trial"; however, it sounds like the district court was told that it was free to consider evidence (not that it was required to consider that evidence). Can you clarify this point in the article?

Done. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• In that same paragraph, you support all factual assertions by citing to the 2014 Third Circuit opinion. Can you include an explanatory parenthetical statement at the end of the citation that explains the 2014 opinion is citing the 2012 opinion?

Done. I think. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• In the subsection titled "Supreme Court," the article says that "The United States government also filed an amicus brief, meaning the Solicitor General's office would be appearing at oral argument ...." To me, this implies that the Solicitor General was allowed to appear during oral arguments because they filed an amicus brief, but that's not what happened in this case. On December 21, 2015, the Solicitor General filed a motion asking permission to appear at oral argument, and that motion was granted on January 8, 2016. Can you clarify that the Solicitor General appeared at oral argument because the Court granted a motion that permitted them to do so?

Done. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Opinion of the Court

• In the block quotation, you include an ellipse inside brackets. Per MOS:ELLIPSES, I don't the bracket is necessary because you are not quoting other ellipses in this passage.

Not Done. While the MOS is good to know, since SCOTUS decisions frequently use ellipses, making it unambiguous that this is an editorial omission not part of the text is, in my opinion, useful. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

That's a good point. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:36, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• This is sufficiently detailed for the purposes of this GA review, but if you plan to nominate this for FA status in the future, then you should expand the discussion about the majority and dissenting opinions to say more about the methodological foundations of those opinions and the reasons why they reached their respective conclusions. For example, you will also want to include information about Justice Breyer's "costs to the employer" argument (slip op. at 7-8).

Will do! Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• When discussing Justice Thomas' Fourth Amendment analogy, the article says "people stuck in traffic who were injured by unconstitutional actions would not be able to sue because none of their rights were violated." Can you clarify the language here? Justice Thomas said that the hypothetical law could cause collateral damage (e.g. in the form of traffic delays), but such harms caused by traffic delays would not be a direct result of that law. Can you make sure this distinction is clear in the article?

Done. I think Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Commentary

• The article says that "Edelman forwarded interpretations of Heffernan's actions ...." Can you use a different word than "forwarded?" The meaning of this sentence is a little unclear to me.

Done. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

• The article states that "the decision was largely praised." This may be true, but it would be great to include commentary that is critical of the opinion for the sake of balance. Of course, if only a minority of commentators have expressed criticism, it should be given its due WP:WEIGHT.

I honestly have yet to find any negative commentary on the ruling. The Breitbart article I posted on the talk page read as critical but never actually said anything negative about the decision. If you know of any I'd gladly include them but even a Google News search today didn't turn up anything. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I haven't been able to find anything either; I simply meant that if you happened to know of anything, then you should include it. I'm honestly a little surprised this case sin't getting more press coverage. It is such an interesting case, and the press usually likes to cover issues that involve the application of the First Amendment in the workplace. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Citations

I want to preface these comments by noting that the Good Article Criteria say that "[i]n-line citations should preferably be of a consistent style." (See criterion 2(b); emphasis is my own). That said, minor deviations in style will not be fatal to this GA review, but I think you should certainly try, to the extent that it is possible, to follow a consistent style. If you want to use Bluebook, then you should make sure that citations conform to relevant Bluebook conventions. The following comments discuss conventions for Bluebook style citations, but I am happy to answer any questions you may have about Bluebook citations:

• After you provide a full citation to a case, you can use short-form citations in subsequent footnotes (see, e.g., footnote 1, where a full citation is repeated twice). For short-form citations to the circuit court opinions, be sure to include info about the citation in the Federal Reporter so that readers know that you are citing to one of the circuit court opinions, rather than the SCOTUS slip opinion. For example, a short form citation to the 2015 3d Cir. opinion would look like this: Heffernan, 777 F.3d at 149.
• The proper Bluebook full-form citation to the slip opinion for this case is Heffernan v. City of Paterson, No. 14-1280, 578 U.S. ___, slip op. at [insert page number or page range] (2016). The short-form citation to the majority opinion is Heffernan, slip op. at [insert page number or page range]. The short-form citation to Justice Thomas' dissenting opinion should look like this: Heffernan, slip op. at [insert page number or page range] (Thomas, J., dissenting).
• When citing to a source that is available in print, you don't need to include a URL in the citation. If you do, the words "available at" (in italics) should precede the URL (see this explanation at pp. 2-3). However, because Wikipedia's internal style guidelines disfavor the clutter created by bare URLs, I think it is okay to simply turn the title of the source into a hyperlink that directs readers to the source.

I have updated {{ussc}} so that it can format short citations and updated the article accordingly. I agree the bare urls were unsightly, and so {{bluebook website}} has been updated as well to remove them. If there are other citation issues feel free to bring them up. Wugapodes (talk) 17:22, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your diligent work with citations for this article and for your incredible work with the templates! Everything looks good here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:37, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if any of these comments are unclear or if you have any questions. Thanks again for your incredible work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: Thank you for your incredible work with this article! I am pleased to announce that is has passed this GA review. Your work with SCOTUS articles and citation templates is truly admirable. Hopefully we will see many more excellent articles from you in the future! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Additional comments about article from Notecardfrofree

Earlier this week, I was asked to provide additional comments about this article. In general, I think the article is very well written and in good shape, but I have offered some suggestions for how the article can be improved in anticipation of a potential FA nomination:

Lead

• The article says: "the Court held that a public employee's constitutional rights are violated when an employer disciplines them ...." I would consider changing this to say that their rights "can be violated," or perhaps re-phrase this part of the lead to more narrowly state that this was the holding in this case, because the Court's opinion notes that this is not a categorical rule (see, e.g., slip. op. at 3).
• The article says: "Justice Stephen Breyer wrote for the majority that the department's belief was all that mattered ...." I would begin this paragraph with a sentence that summarizes the ultimate result of the case (i.e. In an majority opinion written by Justice Breyer, the United States Supreme Court held that Heffernan was deprived of a constitutional right, even though the City acted upon a mistaken belief).

Background

• For the purposes of the "comprehensiveness" requirement (see WP:FACR), I would suggest adding a few paragraphs in the background section that explain (1) how the First Amendment protects the freedom to support political candidates, (2) SCOTUS cases that discuss the application of this right when public employees are disciplined by their employers (Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347 (1976), and its progeny), and (3) you may also want to consider adding a brief explanation of section 1983 suits (and how they allow citizens to recover damages for constitutional violations).

• Thanks so much for adding this material to the article; I think it certainly helps readers understand the legal issues at stake in this case. However, I would recommend expanding this section a bit. Because it is so central to Justice Breyer's analysis, I would recommend including a brief summary of the facts and holding of Waters v. Churchill, 511 U. S. 661 (1994) and some of the other cases that are discussed by Justice Breyer and Justice Thomas. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:44, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• If you do expand the background section further, I would recommend that you further subdivide it into a "legal background" section that provides information about the First Amendment issues involved in the case (see above) and a "procedural history" section that discusses the case's epic journey through the lower courts.
• The petition for cert, the brief in opposition to the cert petition, and the merits briefs contain some interesting factual allegations that you may want to weave into the description of the facts of the case. For example, in the petition for cert at p. 4, Heffernan claims that "Arsenio Sanchez, a Paterson police officer assigned to Mayor Torres’s security staff, happened to be driving by and saw Heffernan speaking with Goow and holding the sign" at the distribution center (the implication, of course, was that this was no mere coincidence).

Opinion of the Court

• I will take a closer look at this section over the next few days and I will post comments soon.

Overall, you have done an excellent job to expand this section. Here are a few, relatively minor suggestions for improving this section:

• The article says: "... the actions were still that of a government official which were supported by unconstitutional reasoning." Can you find a different phrase than "unconstitutional reasoning?" Perhaps you can say something like "the City's actions still constituted an unconstitutional intrusion upon fundamental rights protected by the First Amendment?"
• The article says: "... "the harm is still the same regardless of the factual basis of the employer's reasoning." The phrase "the harm is still the same" seems a bit vague; perhaps you can say something like "even if a public employer acts upon mistaken beliefs, those actions still prevent the employee from engaging in activities that are protected under the First Amendment." You can probably achieve the same result by consolidating this sentence with the very next sentence in the same paragraph.
• In the section about Justice Thomas' dissent, you write "42 U.S.C. § 1983" in the text of the article. I don't think WIkipedia's manual of style says anything about this, but the Bluebook discourages the use of the section symbol in the text of articles (it should generally only be used in footnotes and citations; cf. the practice of the Yale Law Journal). Instead, the Bluebook recommends using the word "section" in place of the section symbol. In this case, however, I would recommend keeping "42 U.S.C. § 1983" as-is because I think it is clearer to readers than "Section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code" (and the Supreme Courts wrote "42 U.S.C. § 1983" in their slip opinion).
• The article says: "Because of this, the dissent argues that Heffernan cannot succeed as Section 1983 provides a cause of action only for those whose rights have been violated, and Heffernan's rights were not violated." I would divide this into two separate sentences. First, say that Justice Thomas explained that relief under Section 1983 is only available when the government deprives citizens of constitutional rights. Second, say that Justice Thomas argued there was no deprivation of a constitutional right (and explain why there was no deprivation).
• You should also include a summary of part II-B of Justice Thomas' dissent, where he explains that "Heffernan’s injury must result from activities within the zone of interests that §1983 protects."

Again, you have done excellent work with this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:38, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Please let me know if any of the above comments are unclear or if you have any additional questions. Thanks again for your fantastic work to improve this article! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

One more minor comment: you should make sure that the dates are formatted consistently in the references section (see this list of Bluebook month abbreviations). Also, to make things consistent, you should place a period at the end of every footnote. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 15:47, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Notecardforfree: Thanks so much for giving such thorough suggestions! I think I've addressed all of them, and will be nominating it at FAC soon. Hopefully you will leave further suggestions there! Wugapodes [t^hɔk] [kantʃɻɪbz] 17:55, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

@Wugapodes: You have really done some great work with this. I look forward to seeing the FA nomination! Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

TFAR

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Heffernan v. City of Paterson --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Short-form references in this article.

Firstly, thank you for this article which I read with great interest. I think it explains rather well what is inherently a complicated legal situation. However, I found difficulty looking up the primary sources and I guess that this is a problem with the general style guidelines for legal articles. I have therefore raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Legal#Linking of short ussc references Thincat (talk) 12:54, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Heffernan v. City of Paterson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20170217062652/https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-1280_1qm2.pdf to https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/14-1280_1qm2.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:07, 7 October 2017 (UTC)