Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued the U.S. Attorney General in the U.S. District Court for D.C. in Washington, D.C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4 (b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement.
In Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court assessed whether this feature of the VRA was constitutional under Congress’s power to “enforce” the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, which prohibit racially discriminatory voting practices.
Shelby County v. Holder is a legal case, decided on June 25, 2013, in which the U.S. Supreme Court declared (5–4) unconstitutional Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) of 1965, which set forth a formula for determining which jurisdictions were required (under Section 5 of the act) to seek federal approval of any proposed change to their ...
On June 25, 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a devastating decision, Shelby County v. Holder, which dealt a significant blow to the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Court struck down the law’s formula for determining which states and localities should be required to get federal approval for changes to voting policies to ensure that they were ...
Section 5 was originally enacted for five years, but has been continually renewed since that time. Shelby County, Alabama, filed suit in district court and sought both a declaratory judgment that Section 5 and Section 4 (b) are unconstitutional and a permanent injunction against their enforcement.
On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court swept away a key provision of this landmark civil rights law in Shelby County v. Holder. In April 2010, Shelby County, Alabama filed suit asking a federal court in Washington, DC to declare Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional.
Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington, D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that sections 4 (b) and 5 are facially unconstitutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement.
On June 25, 2013, the United States Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to use the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act to determine which jurisdictions are subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (2013). The Supreme Court did not ...
Petitioner Shelby County, in the covered jurisdiction of Alabama, sued the Attorney General in Federal District Court in Washington, D. C., seeking a declaratory judgment that § 4(b) and § 5 are facially unconsti-tutional, as well as a permanent injunction against their enforcement.
Holding: Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional; its formula can no longer be used as a basis for subjecting jurisdictions to preclearance. Judgment: Reversed, 5-4, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on June 25, 2013. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion.