Template talk:Infobox US Supreme Court case

error

Description of suggested change: Turns out I was wrong and the "SplitOpinion" parameter is not obsolete and exists for a reason (for example Goldwater v. Carter, where |SplitOpinion=yes is supposed to shows the "Case opinion" header). Sorry, my mistake. Diff:

−

| header21 = {{#if:{{{Majority|}}}{{{Plurality|}}}{{{PerCuriam|}}}{{{Seriatim|}}}{{{Statement|}}}|Case opinion}}{{#if:{{{Majority2|}}}{{{Plurality2|}}}{{{PerCuriam2|}}}{{{Dissent|}}}{{{Concurrence|}}}{{{Concurrence/Dissent|}}}{{{Seriatim2|}}}|s}}

+

| header21 = {{#if:{{{Majority|}}}{{{Plurality|}}}{{{PerCuriam|}}}{{{Seriatim|}}}{{{SplitOpinion|}}}{{{Statement|}}}|Case opinion}}{{#if:{{{Majority2|}}}{{{Plurality2|}}}{{{PerCuriam2|}}}{{{Dissent|}}}{{{Concurrence|}}}{{{Concurrence/Dissent|}}}{{{Seriatim2|}}}|s}}

−

| Seriatim5 | Statement | Statement2 | SubmitDate

+

| Seriatim5 | SplitOpinion | Statement | Statement2 | SubmitDate

Politicsfan4 (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

 Completed, and thank you for catching that! This infobox template is transcluded to thousands of pages, so it would be better if you were to add any future edits to the template's [sandbox] making sure that it is first synchronized with the live template. Then the changes can be tested using the [testcases] page – see WP:TESTCASES. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 22:10, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 2 July 2024

Please change the three red backgrounds to #B60000 (used for Superseded, Overruled, Abrogated)

Reasoning:

• MOS:CONTRAST: "Ensure the contrast of the text with its background reaches at least ... AA level, and AAA level when feasible"
• AAA is feasible when choosing template colors, and therefore required in order to meet the guideline
• #FF0000 aka red fails even AA
• #B60000 is the lightest shade of pure red that passes AAA with white text (from Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Accessibility/Colors)

Thanks. Jruderman (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 04:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Adjusting width for Prior/Procedural/Subsequent fields

Right now, the template when including Prior / Procedural / Subsequent fields puts a label like "Prior" that takes nearly half the width of the infobox, forcing the details of the prior/etc. into a narrow column. I would like to suggest that we switch this to be something where we put the Prior/etc. label on its own line followed by the list of prior actions giving those actions the full width of the infobox, as demod in Department of Homeland Security v. Regents of the University of California.
Along the sample, I would like to not include the text "Prior" should the prior argument be the only one of these three that are filled out in the template.
Further, it would be nice to have a flag that the text of these three can be entered as a clear list, and then adding a flag to either present the list as a single sentence or as in bullet points (as in the DHS case above). The latter makes sense when the history is complex and the breathing room of a list makes sense (relative to the length of the article), whereas by default when there's only a couple of prior actions they only need to be presented as a single "sentence", or in the case where the article is still relatively short. — Masem (t) 17:45, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 1 July 2025

I was reviewing the "Page information" for some pages which include this template and noticed that there is a low-priority linter error that this template is failing: night-mode-unaware-background-color. My understanding is that resolving this issue would entail specifying the color style property whenever the background-color is specified. This would mean that the following changes should be made.

−

| abovestyle = background-color: #99c0ff; padding: 0.2em; line-height: 1.4em; font-size:125%; font-style: italic | aboveclass = fn | image = <includeonly>{{{image|[[File:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg|100px|Seal of the United States Supreme Court|alt=|link=]]}}}</includeonly> | caption = <includeonly>[[Supreme Court of the United States]]</includeonly> | captionstyle = padding-top: 0.5em; font-weight: bold | headerstyle = background-color: #99c0ff; white-space:nowrap

+

| abovestyle = background-color: #99c0ff; color: black; padding: 0.2em; line-height: 1.4em; font-size:125%; font-style: italic | aboveclass = fn | image = <includeonly>{{{image|[[File:Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg|100px|Seal of the United States Supreme Court|alt=|link=]]}}}</includeonly> | caption = <includeonly>[[Supreme Court of the United States]]</includeonly> | captionstyle = padding-top: 0.5em; font-weight: bold | headerstyle = background-color: #99c0ff; color: black; white-space:nowrap

It appears that the other locations which set the background-color in this template also set the color property, so I believe that only the two changes noted above would be necessary to resolve this linter error. Ovenel (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

I implemented this into the sandbox, which should be reflected in the testcase page Template:Infobox US Supreme Court case/testcases. I do not see any changes when viewing that page in dark mode (nor in light mode). The changes are still there on the sandbox, but I don't know what else would need to be fixed. Masem (t) 00:20, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

After looking at the reference link at the end of the page documenting the night-mode-unaware-background-color issue, it appears that the default action for elements with the infobox class is to set the background-color and color styles with the important attribute (unless the notheme class is applied as well), so that would explain why there doesn't appear to be a change in the dark-mode behavior.

In the recommendations for nightmode compatibility, it appears that the guidance is to avoid specifying colors with inline styles and instead either use the existing classes from the available Wikipedia skins or to use a stylesheet for the template which includes media queries for specifying the dark-mode styles. However, I'm not familiar enough with template development to say what would need to be changed for that purpose. Ovenel (talk) 16:00, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to add section in infobox for advocates

I'm not sure of the syntax, but I wanted to propose that the infobox add an option to identify the advocates for either side when notable. So for example, this could easily identify cases where notable advocates like Daniel Webster or Roscoe Conkling, and later, Thurgood Marshall and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are involved. It could also easily identify cases where the solicitor general is the one that takes the arguments (even if the federal government may not be name in the case).

There may be room for multiple names, but it could also be just the lead advocate. This would likely apply to only the small number of articles that feature discussion of the litigation/advocates in the body of the page. Dizzycheekchewer (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2026 (UTC)