Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
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]
In the Supreme Court decision of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), Justice Earl Warren authored in the majority opinion that preventing racial discrimination was a "legitimate response" of Congress and that South Carolina's intentions were generated from "insidious and pervasive evil". [38]
The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of the Section 5 preclearance requirement in three cases. The first case was South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966), [171] which was decided about five months after the Act's enactment. The court held that Section 5 constituted a valid use of Congress's power to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment ...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court made it harder on Thursday to prove racial discrimination in electoral maps in a major ruling backing South Carolina Republicans who moved out 30,000 ...
Katzenbach v. McClung , 379 U.S. 294 (1964), was a landmark decision of the U.S. Supreme Court which unanimously held that Congress acted within its power under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in forbidding racial discrimination in restaurants as this was a burden to interstate commerce .
The decision marked a significant victory for abortion rights' advocates suddenly forced to find safeguards at the state level after the U.S. Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade in June.
This was the first case in which the Supreme Court struck down a state law as unconstitutional. Martin v. Hunter's Lessee, 14 U.S. 304 (1816) Federal courts may review state court decisions when they rest on federal law or the federal Constitution. This decision provides for the uniform interpretation of federal law throughout the states ...
They unsuccessfully sought to take the case directly to the California Supreme Court and were left to pursue the case in a lower court. Then, in a sweeping decision in August 2021, Alameda County ...