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.
I'd expect to find a summary of the legal reasoning specific to this case, but this article reads as if it was written from a social, vs. a legal, perspective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:37, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I have doubts about including the amicus discussion about overturning Roe v. Wade. Rust is a 1st Amendment question. Would anyone object to removing that provision and expanding discussion on gov't subsidy/sponsorship implications? Lord Roem (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the section. It seemed to be aimed at showing Justice Roberts's opposition to Roe v. Wade, and had nothing to do with the issues decided in the Rust case. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:33, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Format does not follow standard SCOTUS case articles
Though resourceful and apparently accurate, this article does not follow other articles about Supreme Court cases. I'll do what I can to fix this, while leaving the content intact. However, this may be an article that requires several revisions. Nonamer98 (talk) 22:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)