Bluebook Adopts Rule Requiring Slavery Parentheticals

Will Baude and Steve Sachs wrote last year about the Bluebook proposal that required slave parentheticals. The Bluebook has adopted the proposal and it is part of its current edition.

Rule 10.7.1(d). now covers slave cases. The parenthetical ‘(enslaved parties)” is used for any cases in which an enslaved subject was named as a defendant. If an enslaved individual is the subject of property or another legal dispute, but not named as a defendant in the case, the parenthetical (“enslaved party at issue”) will be used. For other cases involving enslaved persons, use an adequately-descriptive parenthetical.

  • Dred Scott against Sanford, 60 U.S. (19 What. 393 (1857) (enslaved party), Constitutional amendments supersededU.S. Const. amend. XIV.
  • Wall v. Wall (30 Miss. 91 (1855), (enslaved subject).

There are several obvious choices for the first parenthetical. Dred Scott. Und ich denke Prigg The second parenthetical would be appropriate. Apart from the most well-known cases I don’t know how authors could determine if an instance involved slavery. Do we now need to review any prior cases? It will take me a while to get an order from a law editor for me to include a parenthetical. Dred Scott.