Talk:Sixteen states sue U.S. President Trump to stop declaration of emergency for border wall

Headline

The current headline is incorrect, to my understanding: they aren't suing to stop the wall, they're suing to stop the use of a state of emergency to bypass Congress's power to control disposition of funds. Painting it as wall-versus-no-wall is the fight Trump is, likely, looking for. It's a separate question, for any given proponent of the law suit, how much of their personal motivation is about the power of the purse and how much is about building a wall on the Mexico border. --Pi zero (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Review of revision 4465819 [Passed]

Revision 4465819 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The suit is about the emergency declaration, not the border wall; characterizing it in the headline as about the wall and not the emergency was a major oops. Be careful not to claim to know what folks are thinking. It's an important distinction to make. There was a bit of a muddle over what the suit claimed. The claimed damage to the states is to establish that the states have standing to sue, which is distinct from the argument or unconstitutionality. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 4465819 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 23:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: The suit is about the emergency declaration, not the border wall; characterizing it in the headline as about the wall and not the emergency was a major oops. Be careful not to claim to know what folks are thinking. It's an important distinction to make. There was a bit of a muddle over what the suit claimed. The claimed damage to the states is to establish that the states have standing to sue, which is distinct from the argument or unconstitutionality. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.