Talk:Azar v. Garza

Recent reverts

Don't they say in the decision that they granted cert even though they knew she had already had the abortion? From Oyez:

Because the abortion made the government’s claim moot, it did not ask the Supreme Court to review the en banc order as planned, but instead filed a petition for certiorari to nullify the appellate court’s en banc ruling so that it would not stand as precedent.

Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:30, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seraphim System: Cert was granted before they knew that the girl was allowed to go forward with her procedure. The SC then learned that the girl was no longer pregnant and they then vacated the case as moot. If you have better wording to express this then that is fine. The content as expressed here should be in the article in an enhanced form. Can you suggest an enhanced form? JohnWickTwo (talk) 13:13, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

The correction you made isn't supported by the source it was cited to, so I reverted it. I can't suggest an "enhanced form" because it is plainly refuted by both the case opinion and the Oyez summary that I posted on talk. You should please make an effort to read those.Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:17, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

It is on pages 3-4 of the Court's decision - I hope that helps! Seraphim System ^(talk) 15:21, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Munsingware is the precedent cited there and that is what would make sense to add as an enhancement here. However, the edits which you did make just now in the article appear to take care of this matter. JohnWickTwo (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2018 (UTC)