Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Texas v. White, 74 U.S. (7 Wall.) 700 (1869), was a case argued before the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1869. [1] The case's notable political dispute involved a claim by the Reconstruction era government of Texas that U.S. bonds owned by Texas since 1850 had been illegally sold by the Confederate state legislature during the American Civil War.
Summary Bailey v. Alabama: 211 U.S. 452 (1911) peonage laws and the Thirteenth Amendment: Weems v. United States: 217 U.S. 349 (1910) cruel and unusual punishment: Bailey v. Alabama: 219 U.S. 219 (1911) Advisory opinion overturned peonage laws Muskrat v. United States: 219 U.S. 346 (1911) Advisory opinion doctrine Flint v. Stone Tracy Co. 220 U ...
The Inclusive Communities Project is a Texas-based non-profit organization that helps low-income families obtain affordable housing. [5] In 2008, they filed suit against the Texas agency responsible for administering these tax credits, claiming it disproportionately allocated too many tax credits "in predominantly black inner-city areas and too ...
OPINION: Part two of theGrio’s Black History Month series explores the myths, misunderstandings and mischaracterizations of the struggle for civil rights. The post Black History/White Lies: The ...
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. The court ruled that it was unconstitutional for ...
Michael Harriot is a writer, cultural critic and championship-level Spades player. His book, Black AF History: The Unwhitewashed Story of America, will be released in 2022.
Republican Party of Minnesota v. White , 536 U.S. 765 (2002), was a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the First Amendment rights of candidates for judicial office. In a 5–4 decision, the court ruled that Minnesota's announce clause, which forbade candidates for judicial office from announcing their views on disputed ...
After the Supreme Court sided with the federal government in the Texas v. New Mexico water case, the parties are going back to the drawing board. Texas sued New Mexico over Rio Grande Water.