User:Ex Parte/sandbox/Designating a Supreme Court case as a landmark

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, so its job is to document information, not devise it. To that end, Wikipedia's policies strictly prohibit the publication of any and all "original research." But sometimes this principle sounds more straightforward in theory than in practice. For instance, when writing an article, you may be tempted to add in as many details as possible. Occasionally, descriptive flourishes can be read as having substantive content. So at what point do these descriptive flourishes become prohibited original research?

The answer to that question will depend greatly on context and the particular subject matter you're writing about. This supplement will focus on the use of the word "landmark" as a descriptor specifically in the context of Supreme Court cases. When addressing this issue, editors have conventionally looked to a set of categories, which we will address here. This supplement emphasizes that when weighing these categories, reliable sources must, as always, be the guiding light.

The conventional categories

Existing convention supplies a few different categories for consideration:

• Whether a case establishes a "significant new legal principle or concept";
• Whether a case overturns "prior precedent based on its negative effects or flaws in its reasoning";
• Whether a case departs "from prior practice without violating the rule of stare decisis";
• Whether a case establishes "a test or a measurable standard that can be applied by courts in future decisions."

Each case which fits within one of these categories has traditionally been deemed a likely candidate for being labeled "landmark" decision. But this assessment is not made by scrutinizing the details of the court's opinion yourself. Instead, we look to reliable secondary sources to determine what category (if any) a case falls within. There are certain indicators you can look for within the relevant media coverage to aid your analysis.

Significant new legal principles

To determine whether a Supreme Court case established "significant new legal principles," it requires more than just knowing what what the holding was; you need to consider how reliable sources actually describe the effect of the holding. For instance, take the well-known case of Bostock v. Clayton County. The media coverage of that decision described it as a "watershed victory," a "landmark," and a ruling which would have "longstanding" effects. Any on-looker could confirm that the case was significant, but the important thing here is that reliable sources shared that same view.

Overturns a prior precedent

Supreme Court cases can also be reliably called "landmarks" when they overturn a prior precedent. Precedent is extraordinarily important in the American court system. Stare decisis—the "doctrine that courts should generally be bound by their prior decisions"—is the bedrock of precedent and shapes our legal system. When a court departs from this principle, reliable sources will often describe it as a landmark for the simple reason that it is an especially significant act. Consider the case of Janus v. AFSCME, which overruled Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, an important First Amendment case.

When covering cases like this, reliable sources do often point out that a prior precedent had been overturned and use language indicating the significance of that step. While covering Janus, reliable sources emphasized the dramatic effects the ruling would have, mentioned that the precedent in question was a "40-year-old" one, and described the decision as a "blow" to public sector unions. All of this conveys a measure of significance to the decision and reinforce that it is appropriate described as a "landmark."

Departs from prior practice

Not every case which departs from prior practice involves the overruling of a major precedent. In some cases, the Supreme Court will merely distinguish one case from another as a way of narrowing the scope of its precedent. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the court did precisely that. Although it expressly declined to overrule Roe v. Wade, the court allowed several abortion restrictions to take effect. Coverage by reliable sources reflected this fact. For instance, some reporting explained that while the court had "affirmed the right to abortion," it had "allowed" most of the limits on abortion which had been challenged to go into effect. As such, at the time, reliable sources immediately understood that the case was a landmark decision since, even though it did not technically depart from stare decisis, it nevertheless substantially changed the scope of earlier precedent.

Establishes a test

Some Supreme Court cases are not viewed as landmarks because of their immediate effect, but come to be known as one since a test they prescribe shapes a number of later decisions. For example, Lemon v. Kurtzman established the Lemon test which has been applied in dozens of Supreme Court cases since the time of that decision and remains the subject of extensive discussion by reliable sources. Though there may be some disagreement about whether this alone is sufficient to regard a Supreme Court case as a landmark, it remains an important consideration.

Things to remember

1. Although these categories are concrete, they are neither definitive nor exhaustive. They represent editorial consensus, not incontrovertible fact. If there is a case which does not fit within one of the listed categories which reliable sources tend to agree is a "landmark," then label it. Likewise, if there is a case which does fit in one of these categories but which reliable sources tend to agree is not particularly significant, then don't label it.
2. Avoid synthesizing information when assessing whether a particular case is a landmark or not. If a reliable source doesn't provide support for a conclusion that a case is a landmark, you can't simply combine it with other sources to reach a cumulative conclusion. That's not sourcing.
3. Consider the views of others. While you may believe a case is a landmark, others might disagree. Look to gauge the views of the community when necessary.
4. Above all, don't substitute your own assessment of importance for that provided by reliable sources. Reliable sources are the final authority.