Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Their 2–1 decision issued on June 8, 2000, ruled the Texas law was unconstitutional. Justice John S. Anderson and Chief Justice Paul Murphy found that the law violated the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment to the Texas Constitution, which bars discrimination based on sex, race, color, creed, or national origin. J. Harvey Hudson dissented. [34]
CROWN Act (2022; only applies to workplace discrimination) Texas Texas Constitution, Article I, §3a (1972) CROWN Act (2023) Utah Utah Constitution, Article IV, §1 (1896) Utah SB 296 (2015) Vermont Marriage Equality Act (2009) Virginia Virginia Constitution, Article I, §11 (1971) CROWN Act (2020) Voting Rights Act of Virginia (2021)
Texas filed a lawsuit in 2022 challenging federal employment protections for LGBT individuals on constitutional grounds. [248] [103] Anti-discrimination laws in housing (No state-wide protections) Anti-discrimination laws in public accommodations (No state-wide protections) Anti-discrimination laws in the provision of goods and services
Smith v. Allwright, 321 U.S. 649 (1944), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court with regard to voting rights and, by extension, racial desegregation.It overturned the Texas state law that authorized parties to set their internal rules, including the use of white primaries.
Separate but equal was a legal doctrine in United States constitutional law, according to which racial segregation did not necessarily violate the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which nominally guaranteed "equal protection" under the law to all people.
A Texas State Senate bill that sought to restrict content related to sexual orientation and gender identity in public and charter schools was introduced in 2023, as reported by The Texas Tribune ...
For decades, the Supreme Court held that stopping discrimination is more important than the freedom to discriminate. Skip to main content. 24/7 Help. For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 ...
Texas, 78 F.3d 932 (5th Cir. 1996), [1] was the first successful legal challenge to a university's affirmative action policy in student admissions since Regents of the University of California v. Bakke . [ 2 ]