Talk:Heckler v. Chaney

Heckler v. Chaney is currently a Law good article nominee. Nominated by theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) at 05:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC) An editor has placed this article on hold to allow improvements to be made to satisfy the good article criteria. Recommendations have been left on the review page, and editors have seven days to address these issues. Improvements made in this period will influence the reviewer's decision whether or not to list the article as a good article. Short description: United States Supreme Court decision on the reviewability of agency inaction

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, and has specific typeface formatting requirements. 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.

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

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 Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

A fact from Heckler v. Chaney appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 4 April 2024 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows: Did you know... that Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/April. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Heckler v. Chaney .

Mostly, expansion of the reaction section is needed; right now, it's too tight of a summary. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:05, 7 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

also, background on the state of judicial review of agency action prior to the APA theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

could use some background on the FDA theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Heckler v. Chaney/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Voorts (talk · contribs) 19:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1. Is it well written?

   A. The prose is clear and concise, and the spelling and grammar are correct:

   I've copy edited the article. Please feel free to make changes if you disagree. Could you please give it one more copy edit?

   B. It complies with the

   list incorporation

   :

   Everything looks good here.

2. Is it verifiable with no original research?

   A. It contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with

   the layout style guideline

   :

   Before you take this to FAC, I recommend changing to {{sfn}} and a list of references at the end. See, e.g., Shostakovich v. Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corp.

   I do like using Bluebook – any reason to go one way or the other? I'm willing to change if FAC makes a big deal out of it, especially because the Bluebook infrastructure could use some bolstering, but I do enjoy using it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:27, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   I think there's a few reasons to not use Bluebook on Wikipedia. First, the Bluebook is proprietary and regularly updated, making it hard to both maintain the cites and for editors who don't have access to the Bluebook to contribute. Second, the Bluebook is very hard to master (one of the most important parts of getting onto Law Reviews at top law schools is taking a Bluebook exam). On that note, the style you're using isn't actually Bluebook, which doesn't use op. cit. To give some examples: Ref 11 should be Id. at 483. and ref 26 should be Crittenden, supra note 20, at 369 (quoting Chaney v. Hecker, 718 F.2d 1173, 1183, 1185 (D.C. Cir. 1983)).. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Yeaah, I did have to mangle it to op. cit. to fit onwiki, since supra, infra, and id. are discouraged due to other people being allowed to shuffle around the citations and make the signals inaccurate. Also, the fact that {{cite court}} isn't Bluebook is absolutely heartbreaking. iiii suppose i'll switch back to normal, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:25, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose):

   Spot check to come.

   C. It contains no original research:

   Spot check to come.

   D. It contains no copyright violations nor plagiarism:

   Looks good per Earwig.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. It addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   I need to do a brief literature review.

   B. It stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

4. Is it
   neutral
   ?

   It represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each:

   The Reaction etc. section doesn't include any legal scholarship that agrees with the decision; I'm assuming that at least some scholars think that the Court got it right.

   I can expand on reviewers defending the facts of the narrow decision in re Chaney, if you'd like, and please let me know if you find some literature defending the presumption of unreviewability. I'll also need to expand on the lower-court reaction from Werner, because it looks like I've subconsciously excluded her viewpoint there, and possibly account for balance between her and Levin on lower-court reaction to Overton Park. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Please do. Let me know when you're done with everything and I'll do a spot check. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5. Is it stable?

   It does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing

   edit war

   or content dispute:

   Edit/talk page history look fine.

6. Is it illustrated, if possible, by images?

   A. Images are

   copyright status, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content

   :

   File:Larry Leon Chaney.png uses PD-US-no notice, but photographs published in newspapers usually have copyright notices. Could you please share the link to newspapers.com? Also, the date listed on commons is 4 March 2024 instead of the date of publication.

   here's the np.com link, i usually find that newspapers are published without the copyright notice at the time (I used to think otherwise, until someone added an image to my article on Claudia Riner!). Updated date on commons :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:38, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   Thanks. Looks good. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

   B. Images are

   suitable captions

   :

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Some random notes:

• In January 1981, Chaney, Skillern, and the petitioned – Something is missing after "the".
  • Agh, holdover from it already being incorporated into the next sentence – the NAACP LDF signed onto the petition, but was presumably not on death row. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Administrative Procedure Act section
  • The first paragraph seems to be describing the state of the law pre-Heckler, but it's phrased in the present tense.
    • Changed some of it to past tense, although I don't believe the statutes were ever amended. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The D.C. Circuit's interpretation of Overton Park, then, essentially constituted complete disregard of the Supreme Court's decision under the guise of following it. – This should be attributed, not stated in wikivoice. Given that there were two sides to this case, and it was criticized, certainly several scholars and others at least think the D.C. Circuit had things correct.
    • I've attributed to tone down the language, but I don't think there's any real dispute in RSes on the facts of the matter. Pretty much every review I found agrees that the "pragmatic considerations" test of the D.C. Circuit was distinct from the statutory considerations explicitly set out in Overton Park, and the Supreme Court's overruling of the D.C. Circuit reaffirmed the statutory nature of the Overton Park test (even though the presumption of unreviewability it created was largely based on pragmatic considerations as well). I'll copyedit to remove/attribute the value judgment in the D.C. Circuit's "open disregard", though. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:21, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• reaffirming the doctrine that statutory limits on discretion were necessary to prompt review – Should this say preempt, instead of prompt?
  • no, the statutory limits create "law to apply", passing the threshold question, so the statuory limits are what allow review. I've clarified as much :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• says that Chaney fell into the same trap as Overturn Park by continuing to make unreviewable nonstatutory claims of abuse of discretion – Why was this a trap, according to Levin?
  • Copyedited to remove the value judgement :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• He also argues that prosecutorial decisions have "fundamental differences" from agency enforcement decisions. – What are the differences he lays out?
  • added some more from source :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:33, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

leeky: Great work. Spot check to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 20:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some more sources:

• [1]
• [2]
• [3]
• [4]

voorts (talk/contributions) 00:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Update: gonna be swamped with finals and god knows what else for the next couple of days, but I'll briefly report that it would be DUE to include the viewpoint of a few of scholars in the sourcing that align somewhat with Justice Brennan, if not Rehnquist. In the meantime, thanks so much for the review, and I'll get around to punching up the reception section when I'm back :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ping me when you're ready. Good luck with finals. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to check in and see how things are going. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Caught me just as I was doing an expansion :) I'm gonna see if I can whip the lower courts paragraph into shape, and then back to you. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@voorts: okay, i'm happy with where the article is now :) i was going to expand the lower courts paragraph, but i don't think there's that much I could add from Werner and it seems okay for GA. Will need expansion before FA, though – i wish i had the energy to do it now and get feedback for it from you, but i've been absolutely zoinked. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look over the weekend. voorts (talk/contributions) 00:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The lead is very long compared to the article size. Could you shorten it? Spot check to come. voorts (talk/contributions) 01:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spot check of this version. Can you commit to doing a check through of all of the sourcing to fix any other errors? If so, and once all of the below errors are fixed, I'll do one more spot check, but if there are still significant errors, I will have to fail this nom.

• 1a:
  • Advocates thought that it would be more humane ... The source says states turned to lethal injection, believing this was both a less expensive as well as a more humane way to kill condemned inmates (emphasis added).
  • Could you please point to where the source supports neither of which were specifically intended to be the lethal agent.
• 8a: good.
• 11: Page 482 has the number of petitioners and says they're from Texas and Oklahoma, but neither page 482 nor 483 has their names.
  • Gamino verifies it, I've pasted it over.
• 12 & 13: 12 is good, but the page cited for 13 doesn't support the preceding paragraph.
  • it's for the "arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion" quote. moved to a more clear place and corrected the page number. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 21: good
• 25a: page 663 does not support this claim.
  • The court of appeals had relied on a policy statement indicating that the agency considered itself "obligated" to act against unapproved uses of approved drugs,6 but the statement was ambiguous and was in any event appended to a rule that the agency never adopted. unless you want to dispute that it's the same policy statement? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 27: were exercises of prosecutorial discretion with a strong presumption of nonreviewability The source does not support this claim.
  • huh, yeah. cut. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 32: Rowley doesn't have pages 1986-1987, Sunstein sort of says what is in the list, and Werner supports that these were pragmatic considerations.
  • Clarified :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 25c & 33b: 25 is good, but 33 does not support this claim.
  • Yes it does, it's for clarity on the "minor violations" part of the FDCA statute. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 37b: The cite should be to 663-664.
  • done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 40: I don't think this needs to cite to 1127-1128.
  • 1127 is needed for echoing Levin's sentiment, looks like 1128 isn't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• 42: The quote is on page 675, not 676.
  • fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some general notes (not required for GA):

• You use a combo of sfn and sfnm. I would recommend going one way or the other.
• Alphabetize the "academic sources" references.
• Some of the articles only include the first page in the page range.
• Chaney v. Heckler needs a court and year parenthetical.
• The paragraph beginning "Justice Marshall, on the other hand" should have more than one citation.

voorts (talk/contributions) 02:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for being thorough :) I'll get to this when I can, but unfortunately, my computer's in the shop right now so I can't action this right away. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:24, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Since I've completed my initial review with the spot check, I will place this on hold. Let me know when you're done. I'll check back in about a week if I don't hear from you. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@leek: I'll get to this again by Monday at the latest. voorts (talk/contributions) 03:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@theleekycauldron: could you please take a look at 1a above? voorts (talk/contributions) 22:58, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yep, sorry for putting that one off :) could you take a look at the others while I do that one and trim the lead? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Still looking through, but one immediate comment regarding arguing the following. The Court never argues, it reasons (unless you happen to be a dissenting judge, in which case the majority argues, or if you want to be harsh, asserts). voorts (talk/contributions) 01:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

changed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:26, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some comments:

• Recommend rephrasing (or something similar; I think including the phrase "coercive power" is important):

−

Agency inaction, as opposed to agency action, does not inherently violate anyone's rights directly, and therefore does not trigger immediate cause for review.

+

Whereas action may require the use of an agency's "coercive power", inaction does not infringe upon a person's rights.

• Recommend rephrasing:

−

which should generally be deferred to by the courts.

+

which is owed deference by the courts

• Ref 36 should be 1253 in Werner.
• Regarding 25c & 33b above, I was referring to this sentence: The court distinguished Dunlop as precedent, holding that in that case, there was reasonable "law to apply" in that the relevant act could have required the secretary to take the requested action under certain circumstances. Page 256 of Stolls does not discuss Dunlop.

voorts (talk/contributions) 01:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: just checking in. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:10, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@voorts: thanks, hope to respond to these tomorrow :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

done with mods, done with mods, done, and cut :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

fixed everything outstanding, doing my last sweep and spot-check and then i'll ping you back to finish the review :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:14, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]