Talk:California v. Texas
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the California v. Texas article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
.svg)
.svg){kind=small} | Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Consolidated with Texas v. California edit
Hi. It looks like, somewhat confusingly, there are two different cases being consolidated here (source):
- 19-840 — California, et al. v. Texas, et al.
- 19-1019 — Texas, et al. v. California, et al.
My reading of <https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/19-840.html> is that 19-840 (California v. Texas) is the head case now ("Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 19-840."). Consequently, I've made Texas v. California a redirect to this article. There are older cases named California v. Texas (volumes 437 and 457) that we'll need to disambiguate. --MZMcBride (talk) 18:34, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think I addressed this in third-party sources. the TX v CA is Texas et al asking the court (in Feb 2020) to not take up CA et al.'s case (filed in Jan 2020) as not ripe, but if they took it up, they provided some questions to ask. Because they presented a full petition of writ of cert rather than just a brief, it comes up as looks like two cases consolidated as one, but more exacting, just two petitions consolidated as one. --Masem (t) 18:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
tense edit
Should this open with "California v. Texas is a United States Supreme Court case that dealt…"? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 21:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Missing word makes a sentence meaningless edit
In the sentence, "The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling that the individual mandate was unconstitutional, but it that the mandate might be severable from the rest of the ACA", there is a word missing between "but it" and "that the mandate might be severable". I think it should be "disagreed", but I am reluctant to change it based just on gut feeling. Can somebody with the requisite knowledge fix it, please? 2001:BB6:4713:4858:C900:3058:315E:DAB6 (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)