Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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 ...
The holding is a court's determination of a matter of law based on the issue presented in the particular case.In other words: under this law, with these facts, this result. It is the same as a 'decision' made by the judge; however "decision" can also refer to the judge's entire opinion, containing, for example, a discussion of facts, issues, and law as well as the holding.
The higher court would revisit both the January ruling of an improper process for setting the pay package, as well as the decision this week regarding a failure to fix those problems with a second ...
Biden warned that Trump returning as president would be particularly dangerous under the court's ruling. [100] [101] [102] [55] "No one, no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States. [With] today’s Supreme Court decision on presidential immunity, that fundamentally changed for all practical purposes,” Biden said. [3]
Republicans had asked the U.S. Supreme Court to apply its 2023 ruling that allows the justices to second-guess state courts in certain cases to ensure they do not "arrogate to themselves the power ...
The polarized reaction to the decision came as a federal judge begins to weigh whether Trump will face any charges he tried to steal the 2020 election in light of the ruling. Prosecutors are ...
The Supreme Court’s decision could reinforce these actions, without providing any parameters for how they should be applied by the states. Let’s play this out in a different setting.
The justices voted the same as they had in Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., a similar 2007 case. [22] Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the initial opinion of the court, holding that BCRA allowed the showing of the film.