Citation network
Katzenbach Vs. Morgan
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 13, 1966
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Relied / Followed
-
U.S. 641 (1966) U.S. Supreme Court Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 641 (1966) Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
to enforce the Clause. Lassiter v. NorthamptonSearch
-
determining the need for and nature of legislation to secure Fourteenth Amendment guarantees. The test of McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
of the Amendment. See Fay v. NewSearch
-
the sixth grade in a Puerto Rican school, violates the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, our decision in Lassiter v. NorthamptonSearch
-
prohibited by the first sections of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, is inapposite. Compare also Guinn v. UnitedSearch
-
Camacho v. DoeSearch
-
Camacho v. RogersSearch
-
The classic formulation of the reach of those powers was established by Chief Justice Marshall in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Page 384 U. S. 651 Strauder v. WestSearch
-
the provisions of that amendment, and we recently held in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
That test was identified as the one formulated in McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
James Everard's Breweries v. DaySearch
-
U. S. 545 , 265 U. S. 558 -559 (Eighteenth Amendment). Thus, the McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
to enforce the Equal Protection Clause, that is, under the McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
context of a general appraisal of literacy requirements for voting, see Page 384 U. S. 656 South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
e) invalidated on this ground, see generally United States v. RainesSearch
-
Semler v. DentalSearch
-
Williamson v. LeeSearch
-
Together with No. 877, New York City Board of Elections v. MorganSearch
-
See Minor v. HappersettSearch
-
Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
U. S. 89 . See also United States v. MississippiSearch
-
Louisiana v. UnitedSearch
-
Lassiter v. NorthamptonSearch
-
Burns v. RichardsonSearch
-
Cf. James Everard's Breweries v. DaySearch
-
for beverage purposes. Cf. also the settled principle applied in the Shreveport Case (Houston, E. & W. T. R. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 234 U. S. 342 ), and expressed in United States v. DarbySearch
-
Accord, Atlanta Motel v. UnitedSearch
-
of satisfying a legitimate state interest when fundamental liberties and rights are threatened, see, e.g., Carrington v. RashSearch
-
United States v. CaroleneSearch
-
must begin with the established rule of law that the franchise is essentially a matter of state concern, Minor v. HappersettSearch
-
and, as more recently decided, to the general principles of the Fourteenth Amendment. Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
the clause only if it cannot be justified as founded upon a rational and permissible state policy. See, e.g., Powell v. PennsylvaniaSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial