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.

A fact from Rodriguez v. United States appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 17 July 2015 ( check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that some analysts have suggested that the United States Supreme Court's decision in Rodriguez v. United States was influenced by ongoing protests in Ferguson, Missouri? A record of the entry may be seen at Wikipedia:Recent additions/2015/July. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Rodriguez v. United States.

This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

U.S. Supreme Court cases Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Law Low‑importance 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.

Newest editions seem speculative and push an obvious bias upon an otherwise laudable stub of an article. I propose a revision to remove speculation as to why the decision was made; at best it only hits on a guess as to the inner machinations of the judicators' minds, at worst it seemingly takes a stance on the case that may push an outside agenda; there should be no op-eds on Wikipedia.

thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.78.6 ( talk) 21:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Agreed. The commentary and analysis section seems undoubtedly biased; using citations that either no longer exist or are from a sensationalized news article that leans closer to an opinion article. CaptainGummyBearz ( talk) 16:21, 10 May 2020 (UTC) reply