Talk:United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez

	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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

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

Majority opinion?

The article says the court failed to reach a single majority opinion. I think this statement is incorrect. The heading to the first opinion says: "REHNQUIST, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which WHITE, O'CONNOR, SCALIA, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined." That's five justices in all, which (as far as I'm aware) would make it a majority opinion. Justice Kennedy did, to be sure, file a separate concurring opinion, but he said he was also joining in the majority opinion. Richwales (talk) 01:58, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnote problem

Both the external link to the full text of the case, and a cite to specific language in the opinion, are currently showing up as reference #1 ([1]). What is the preferred way to fix this? Richwales (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion

This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is a United States Supreme Court case. Enough said. --bd2412 T 17:52, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]