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 ...
Clarence Thomas (born June 23, 1948) ... Holder, Thomas was the sole dissenter, voting to throw out Section Five of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
Thomas dissented from the Court's denial of certiorari, in a case in which the placement on public land of large crosses to commemorate the deaths of highway patrol officers was ruled unconstitutional. Thomas criticized the lack of clarity and indeterminacy of the Court's tests for whether such a display violated the First Amendment, and noted ...
Pages in category "Lists of United States Supreme Court opinions of Clarence Thomas" The following 25 pages are in this category, out of 25 total. This list may not reflect recent changes .
Thomas believed this exception to the Apprendi rule was not found within the Constitution itself, but only derived from prior precedent that a majority of the Court no longer supported. "The Court’s duty to resolve this matter is particularly compelling, because we are the only court authorized to do so.
However the Richard Glossip case comes out, Wednesday’s proceeding offered a chilling reminder that Justices Thomas and Alito want to undo our constitutional tradition of protecting those who ...
A post on X claims that Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has announced that he will retire Jan. 21. Verdict: False Thomas has not announced his retirement as of press time, and the outlet ...
Lanus v. United States: 570 U.S. 932, 932–33 (2013) Federal Tort Claims Act • exclusion of lawsuits by military personnel : Thomas dissented from the Court's denial of certiorari, in a case asking the Court to revisit its decision in Feres v.