{"id":481,"date":"2015-11-05T18:48:44","date_gmt":"2015-11-05T18:48:44","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=481"},"modified":"2021-12-11T18:11:18","modified_gmt":"2021-12-11T18:11:18","slug":"internal-quotation-marks-omitted","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/?p=481","title":{"rendered":"(internal quotation marks omitted)"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Bluebook<\/em>\u00a0Change<\/h2>\n

Hat tip to Eva Resnicow, aka Editrix Lex<\/a>, who brought this Bluebook<\/em> change to my attention.<\/p>\n

Since the eighteenth edition, The Bluebook<\/em>\u00a0has included “(internal quotation marks omitted)” among the parenthetical expressions listed in Rule 5.2. That is The Bluebook<\/em>\u00a0rule addressing the broader question of how to signal any number of alterations\u00a0a writer might make to a quoted passage. Similar parenthetical notices to be appended to citations as appropriate include “(emphasis added)” and “(citations omitted).” Prior to this year’s twentieth edition,\u00a0The Bluebook<\/em> itself provided no guidance on when a writer could or should omit internal quotation marks. It merely specified how to report their removal. However, a “Blue Tip<\/a>” posted to The Bluebook<\/em> site in 2010 addressed the “when to omit” question. In essence it called for the omission of internal quotation marks whenever\u00a0the primary quoted material consisted\u00a0entirely of an embedded quotation. “In all other cases,” the tip\u00a0advised, “include all internal quotation marks.”<\/p>\n

Although less clearly expressed, the twentieth edition has added comparable\u00a0directions on when to omit internal quotation marks to The Bluebook<\/em> proper. At the same time, it has removed the\u00a0“(internal quotation marks omitted)” parenthetical from Rule 5.2’s roster. There is no ban on its use. The phrase\u00a0has simply been deleted\u00a0from 5.2, presumably, on the ground that it is unnecessary.\u00a0Added to 5.2\u00a0is a new paragraph\u00a0(f)(iii) which directs (as Bluebook<\/em> editions reaching back as far as the fourteenth have advised) that a parenthetical identifying the source of the embedded quote be appended to the citation of the passage in which it appears. Arguably, that identification\u00a0of underlying source provides\u00a0adequate notice that the quotation is derivative. The revised rule is also as emphatic as the Blue Tip was before that interior quotation marks should\u00a0be retained\u00a0in any case where the embedded quote makes up\u00a0less than the entirety of the primary quoted passage.<\/p>\n

An Illustration of the New Rule’s\u00a0Effect<\/h2>\n

A note published this past\u00a0June<\/a> in the\u00a0Harvard Law Review<\/em>\u00a0contains the following\u00a0passage, footnoted as shown:<\/p>\n

Expansive though it is, the President’s enforcement discretion is not limitless. In the OLC’s analysis, legal constraints on nonenforcement derive ultimately from the Take Care Clause24<\/sup> and are spelled out in a series of judicial opinions following a focal 1985 case, Heckler v. Chaney<\/em>.25<\/sup> The Opinion interprets this case law as standing for four general principles: (1) enforcement decisions must reflect \u201cfactors which are peculiarly within [agency] expertise\u201d;26<\/sup> (2) enforcement actions must be \u201cconsonant with … the congressional policy underlying the [governing] statutes\u201d;27<\/sup> (3) the executive cannot \u201c\u2018consciously and expressly adopt[] a general policy\u2019 that is so extreme as to amount to an abdication of its statutory responsibilities\u201d;28<\/sup> and (4) \u201cnonenforcement decisions are most comfortably characterized as judicially unreviewable exercises of enforcement discretion when they are made on a case-by-case basis.\u201d29<\/sup><\/p>\n

\n

24. See id<\/em>. at 4 (locating the President\u2019s enforcement discretion in his constitutional duty to \u201ctake Care that the Laws be faithfully executed\u201d (quoting U.S. Const. art. II, \u00a7 3) (internal quotation marks omitted)<\/span>).
\n26. The Opinion, supra note 3, at 6 (quoting Chaney<\/em>, 470 U.S. at 831) (internal quotation marks omitted)<\/span>.
\n28. Id<\/em>. at 7 (alteration in original) (quoting Chaney<\/em>, 470 U.S. at 833 n.4) (internal quotation marks omitted)<\/span>.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Had this note been prepared and published under the twentieth edition, the parentheticals appended to notes 24, 26, and 28 would be gone. Observe that the passage appearing in clause (3) includes internal quotation marks. The marks that the author omitted are those showing that the quotation from the Office of Legal Counsel opinion, to which the “Id<\/em>.” refers, was itself a direct quote from the Chaney<\/em> decision. The retained marks appear in the quoted Chaney<\/em> passage and are attributed in it to a D.C. Circuit opinion. (Bluebook<\/em> Rule 10.6.2 provides that “only one level of ‘quoting’ or ‘citing’ parentheticals is necessary.” Note 28’s failure to identify the source of the embedded quote is, therefore, in compliance. Also in compliance is the parenthical in note 28 reporting that the alteration to the embedded quote appearing in Chaney<\/em>\u00a0originated with the Office of Legal Counsel opinion.)<\/p>\n

Courts Quoting Themselves Quoting Themselves<\/h2>\n

Some courts, including the nation’s highest, remove internal quotation marks under circumstances\u00a0in which\u00a0the new Rule 5.2 (and the prior Blue Tip) would require their retention. For example, in Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife<\/em>, 504 U.S. 555<\/a> (1992) Justice Blackmun\u2019s dissent cites a prior decision of the Court as follows:.<\/p>\n

Cf.\u00a0Los Angeles\u00a0<\/em>v.\u00a0Lyons,<\/em>\u00a0<\/u>461 U. S. 95, 102 (1983)\u00a0(“Past wrongs were evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury”) (internal quotation marks omitted).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Id<\/em>. at 592.<\/p>\n

A portion, but only a portion, of\u00a0the parenthetical quote (\u201cwhether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury\u201d) was drawn from a still earlier decision of the Court, O’Shea v. Littleton<\/em>, 414 U. S. 488<\/a> (1974). Per\u00a0The Bluebook<\/em>, that quote within\u00a0a quote should have been wrapped\u00a0in single quotation marks. However, this is judicial writing, not a journal article. Judges may well consider it far less important\u00a0to separate out exactly which language quoted from a past opinion of their own court was in turn recycled from a prior one. They are likely, however,\u00a0The Bluebook<\/em> notwithstanding, to continue to feel an obligation to note the occurrence of such reuse with an “internal quotation marks omitted” parenthetical.<\/p>\n

Courts Quoting Themselves Quoting\u00a0Other Sources<\/h2>\n

The situation is markedly different when one\u00a0judicial opinion quotes a prior one that rests\u00a0on\u00a0constitutional or statutory language. Being absolutely clear about that dependency argues\u00a0for retaining the interior quotation marks, even when\u00a0The Bluebook<\/em> would trim them. Justice Thomas, dissenting in a 2015 case,\u00a0Elonis v. U.S.<\/em>, 135 S. Ct. 2001<\/a> (2015), wrote:<\/p>\n

For instance, in\u00a0Posters `N’ Things, Ltd. v. United States,<\/em>\u00a0511 U.S. 513 (1994),<\/a>\u00a0the Court addressed a conviction for selling drug paraphernalia under a statute forbidding anyone to “‘make use of the services of the Postal Service or other interstate conveyance as part of a scheme to sell drug paraphernalia,'”\u00a0id.,<\/em>\u00a0at 516\u00a0(quoting\u00a021\u00a0U.S.C.\u00a0\u00a7 857(a)(1) (1988 ed.)).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Since Thomas’s\u00a0quotation from Posters ‘N’ Things<\/em> consists entirely of language drawn from the U.S. Code, The Bluebook<\/em> would omit the single quotation marks and rely on the “quoting” parenthetical to inform the reader of the ultimate source.<\/p>\n

What Should Lawyers Do in Brief or Memorandum?<\/h2>\n

Negligible\u00a0space is saved by trimming single quotation marks. Indeed, space is sacrificed and the word count increased if that trimming compels the author to add a four word parenthetical phrase. That suggests, at minimum, lawyers not be influenced by the judicial practice of occasionally removing internal quotation marks from quotes that rest within longer ones, no matter the ultimate source.\u00a0Absolute clarity argues for including them even when The Bluebook<\/em>\u00a0considers them unnecessary. In no case should there be need for an “internal quotation marks omitted” parenthetical.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Bluebook\u00a0Change Hat tip to Eva Resnicow, aka Editrix Lex, who brought this Bluebook change to my attention. Since the eighteenth edition, The Bluebook\u00a0has included “(internal quotation marks omitted)” among the parenthetical expressions listed in Rule 5.2. That is The Bluebook\u00a0rule addressing the broader question of how to signal any number of alterations\u00a0a writer might […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,12,36,38,10],"tags":[34,15,39],"class_list":["post-481","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bluebook","category-cases","category-constitutions","category-quotations","category-statutes-2","tag-bluebook","tag-citation-principles","tag-quotations"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=481"}],"version-history":[{"count":33,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":514,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/481\/revisions\/514"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=481"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=481"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/citeblog.access-to-law.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=481"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}