Change to Bluebook Rule 10.7.1 Regarding Slave Cases

The Bluebook has made a change to rule 10.7.1 – a rare change between editions. The change was brought about by lobbying of Michigan State University law professor Justin Simard. For details about Professor Simard’s Citing Slavery Project, see our past post on the topic. The change was made after the first (2020) printing of the Bluebook, so it is only in the online edition and printings from 2021 and later.

As quoted in the editors’ Noteworthy Changes to the 2021 printing:

Rule 10.7.1(d) now covers slave cases. For cases involving an enslaved person as a party, use the parenthetical “(enslaved party).” For cases involving an enslaved person as the subject of a property or other legal dispute but named as a party to the suit, use the parenthetical “(enslaved person at issue).” For other cases involving enslaved persons, use an adequately-descriptive parenthetical.

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393 (1857) (enslaved party), superseded by constitutional amendment, U.S. Const. amend. XIV

Wall v. Wall, 30 Miss. 91 (1855) (enslaved person at issue)