Citation network
Oregon Vs. Mitchell
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Dec 21, 1970
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
- Relied / Followed
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 112 (1970) U.S. Supreme Court Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
U.S. 112 (1970) Oregon v. MitchellSearch
-
to make election regulations in national elections is augmented by the Necessary and Proper Clause. See McCulloch v. MarylandSearch
-
Wheat. 316 (1819). In United States v. ClassicSearch
-
And in Colegrove v. GreenSearch
-
including the age and other qualifications of the voters, should be dispelled by the opinion of this Court in Smiley v. HolmSearch
-
for state, county, and municipal offices and the nature of their own machinery for filling local public offices. Pope v. WilliamsSearch
-
Amendments intended to deny to the States the power to discriminate against persons on account of their race. Loving v. VirginiaSearch
-
Brown v. BoardSearch
-
Reynolds v. SimsSearch
-
Hadley v. JuniorSearch
-
Kotch v. BoardSearch
-
Framers gave Congress power to enforce each of the Civil War Amendments. These enforcement powers are broad. In Jones v. AlfredSearch
-
parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339 , 100 U. S. 345 (1880). (Emphasis added in part.) And in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
sections to undercut the amendments' guarantees of personal equality and freedom from discrimination, see Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
in some cases where Congress has interfered with state regulation of the local electoral process. In Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
qualifications. The New York statute overridden by Congress applied to all elections. And in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
is enhanced by the avowed intention of the framers of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments. Cf. Harper v. VirginiaSearch
-
particularly where the valid portion of the statute does not depend upon the invalid part. See, e.g., Watson v. BuckSearch
-
States Attorney General. The Court upheld the provisions of the 1965 Act over my partial dissent in South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
supra, and Gaston County v. UnitedSearch
-
literacy test to disfranchise Puerto Ricans in New York State is already a matter of record in this Court. Katzenbach v. MorganSearch
-
rule of Plessy v. FergusonSearch
-
U. S. 537 (1896), overruled in Brown v. BoardSearch
-
of racial discrimination is to deal with nationwide discrimination with nationwide legislation. Compare South Carolina v. KatzenbachSearch
-
Together with No. 44, Orig., Texas v. MitchellSearch
-
Attorney General, No. 46, Orig., United States v. ArizonaSearch
-
and No. 47, Orig., United States v. IdahoSearch
-
See Wesberry v. SandersSearch
-
But this Court, in Burroughs v. UnitedSearch
-
My Brother BRENNAN relies upon Carrington v. RashSearch
-
Cipriano v. CitySearch
-
and Evans v. CornmanSearch
-
the First Amendment, e.g., Gitlow v. NewSearch
-
Edwards v. SouthSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial