This article is rated C-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.

This article cites two blog posts as sources, so a word is in order to preempt any concerns with WP:SPS. Although SPS expresses wariness of blogs as sources, it explains that "when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Put another way, the concern underlying SPS is the author's credentials; where they are not in doubt, SPS has little force. It urges caution rather than demanding exclusion.

One of the two posts cited is at SCOTUSblog, itself a notable and reliable source, even in the BLP context. [1] That post's author, Lyle Denniston, has covered the court professionally for nearly five decades, was inducted into the Hall of Fame of the Society of Professional Journalists, and appears on an NPR program covering the court. [2] The other post is by Professor Steve Vladeck, who teaches structural conlaw and the federal courts course at American University. [3] He is also quoted, independently of his post, in the NLJ story on Seale, also cited in the article. Neither Vladeck's nor Denniston's credentials on the subject are seriously in doubt, and so the sources can be used consistently with SPS.

Vladeck's post certainly cannot be used to support claims about Seale himself, however, and the same may also apply to Denniston's post. WP:BLP#Reliable sources forbids use of blogs "as sources for material about a living person." That warning encompasses any claim about a living person, regardless of the subject of the article containing it. Accordingly, I have not used either post as a source for material on Seale himself.- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 13:12, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on United States v. Seale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090803024258/http://www.scotusblog.com:80/wp/a-question-for-the-court/ to http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/a-question-for-the-court

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States v. Seale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091008151934/http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov:80/docket/09-166.htm to http://origin.www.supremecourtus.gov/docket/09-166.htm
• Added {{ dead link}} tag to http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/09-166.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{ Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 17:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC) reply