enow.com Web Search

Search results

  1. Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
  2. Ozawa v. United States - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozawa_v._United_States

    Three months after Ozawa's case was heard by the Supreme Court, the court completely altered their own reasoning during the case of United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind . Thind was an Indian man from the northern region of Punjab who moved to the United States when he was young, having even joined the U.S. Army during World War I . [ 10 ]

  3. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc. v. Equal Employment ...

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.G._&_G.R._Harris_Funeral...

    Alito wrote, "Many will applaud today's decision because they agree on policy grounds with the Court's updating of Title VII. But the question in these cases is not whether discrimination because of sexual orientation or gender identity should be outlawed. The question is whether Congress did that in 1964. It indisputably did not."

  4. United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Bhagat...

    United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind, 261 U.S. 204 (1923), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States decided that Bhagat Singh Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as an Aryan, was ineligible for naturalized citizenship in the United States. [1]

  5. Discrimination based on nationality - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_based_on...

    Discrimination based on nationality is discriminating against a person based on their nationality, country of citizenship, or national origin. Although many countries' non-discrimination laws contain exceptions for nationality and immigration status, [ 1 ] nationality is related to race and religion, so direct discrimination on the basis of ...

  6. Bostock v. Clayton County - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bostock_v._Clayton_County

    Bostock v. Clayton County, 590 U.S. 644 (2020), is a landmark [1] United States Supreme Court civil rights decision in which the Court held that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects employees against discrimination because of sexuality or gender identity.

  7. Alexander v. Sandoval - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_v._Sandoval

    The Court then examined section 602, the section of Title VI under which the disparate-impact regulation was promulgated, to determine whether it created an implied private right of action. It began by noting that certain "rights-creating" language that was present in section 601 and Cannon relied on for its holding, was absent from section 602 ...

  8. Ashcroft v. Iqbal - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Iqbal

    Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court case which held that plaintiffs must present a "plausible" cause of action. Alongside Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (and together known as Twiqbal), Iqbal raised the threshold which plaintiffs needed to meet.

  9. Moritz v. Commissioner - Wikipedia

    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moritz_v._Commissioner

    Charles E. Moritz v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 469 F.2d 466 (1972), was a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in which the Court held that discrimination on the basis of sex constitutes a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution.