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 ...
This is a list of cases before the United States Supreme Court that the Court has agreed to hear and has not yet decided. [1] [2] [3] Future argument dates are in parentheses; arguments in these cases have been scheduled, but have not, and potentially may not, take place.
Court historians and other legal scholars consider each chief justice who presides over the Supreme Court of the United States to be the head of an era of the Court. [1] These lists are sorted chronologically by chief justice and include most major cases decided by the court.
The House is set to vote Tuesday on Senate-passed legislation that would provide security to family members of Supreme Court justices, which comes nearly a
The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to revive a lawsuit from three House Republicans after their pay was docked for not complying with a pandemic-era mask requirement on the chamber floor. In a ...
The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Wednesday in a major case over transgender health care for minors.The case focuses on Tennessee's ban on the treatment for minors in the state. The ...
For cases brought to the Supreme Court by direct appeal from a United States District Court, the chief justice may order the case remanded to the appropriate U.S. Court of Appeals for a final decision there. [220] This has only occurred once in U.S. history, in the case of United States v. Alcoa (1945). [221]
The Supreme Court could decide to hold another hearing for the case, however. [ 57 ] On February 7, 2025, the Department of Justice informed the Supreme Court that the Tennessee law does not violate equal protection based on sex or any other characteristic and that the Court should still proceed with ruling on the case.