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

United States Low‑importance 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. 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. 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.

I notice that the article is tagged as needing additional citations. What, other than the primary source, could make this a better article? Jojhutton ( talk) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

Actually, primary sources are discouraged, see WP:PRIMARY. Citations are needed from secondary sources, such as media coverage or in this case law review articles would be good too. Aboutmovies ( talk) 06:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC) reply

This article does not read nearly as polished as most Supreme Court opinions on the site. It's primarily direct quotes and odd explanations. Can anybody expand it and include commentary from critical secondary sources such as law review articles? Additionally, the citation formatting used is incorrect. Charlie Avocado ( talk) 20:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC) reply