Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Every law that takes away, or impairs, rights vested, agreeably to existing laws, is retrospective, and is generally unjust, and may be oppressive; and it is a good general rule, that a law should have no retrospect: but there are cases in which laws may justly, and for the benefit of the community, and also of individuals, relate to a time ...
Purcell v. Gonzalez (2006) was a case where the U.S. Supreme Court vacated a lower court's order that had blocked an Arizona voter ID law during the 2006 midterm election. Plaintiffs challenged Arizona's voting rules in federal court. Initially, the district court denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction.
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013), is a landmark decision [1] of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the constitutionality of two provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Section 5, which requires certain states and local governments to obtain federal preclearance before implementing any changes to their voting laws or practices; and subsection (b) of Section 4 ...
A federal appeals court on Monday ruled against a key tool used to enforce the Voting Rights Act – possibly setting up another Supreme Court showdown over one of the nation’s landmark civil ...
South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301 (1966), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court that rejected a challenge from the state of South Carolina to the preclearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which required that some states submit changes in election districts to the Attorney General of the United States (at the time, Nicholas Katzenbach). [1]
A split Kansas Supreme Court ruling last week issued in a lawsuit over a 2021 election law found that voting is not a fundamental right listed in the state Constitution's Bill of Rights. The ...
Last month, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that several laws to restrict voting — including a law that eliminated student IDs — violated that state’s constitution. The lawsuit was brought ...
According to a 2012 retrospective article in The New Yorker by Jeffrey Toobin, the court planned to rule on the narrow question that had originally been presented: Can Citizens United show the film? At the conference among the justices after oral argument, the vote was 5–4 in favor of Citizens United being allowed to show the film.