Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Bush Vs. Vera

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Jun 13, 1996

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

69 entries 16 linked 53 unlinked
Show
  1. United States Vs. Hays US Supreme Court · Apr 19, 1995
  2. Shaw Vs. Reno US Supreme Court · Apr 20, 1993
  3. White Vs. Weiser US Supreme Court · Jun 18, 1973
  4. Burns Vs. Richardson US Supreme Court · Apr 25, 1966
  5. Terry Vs. Adams US Supreme Court · May 04, 1953
  6. Smith Vs. Allwright US Supreme Court · Apr 03, 1944
  7. Nixon Vs. Condon US Supreme Court · May 02, 1932
  8. Holland Vs. Illinois US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1990
  9. Batson Vs. Kentucky US Supreme Court · Apr 30, 1986
  10. Holder Vs. Hall US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1994
  11. Voinovich Vs. Quilter US Supreme Court · Dec 08, 1992
  12. Growe Vs. Emison US Supreme Court · Nov 02, 1992
  13. Chisom Vs. Roemer US Supreme Court · Jun 20, 1991
  14. Thornburg Vs. Gingles US Supreme Court · Jun 30, 1986
  15. Shaw Vs. Hunt US Supreme Court · Jun 13, 1996
  16. United States Vs. Armstrong US Supreme Court · May 13, 1996
  17. U.S. 952 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Bush, Governor of Texas, Et Al. V. Vera
    Search
  18. facts showing that he personally has been subjected to any racial classification, lacks standing under United States v. Hays
    Search
  19. motivating the drawing of district lines, see, e. g., Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  20. Together with No. 94-806, Lawson et al. v. Vera
    Search
  21. et al., and No. 94-988, United States v. Vera
    Search
  22. of district lines than politically motivated gerrymandering, which is not subject to strict scrutiny, see Davis v. Bandemer
    Search
  23. large part by the use of race as a proxy for political characteristics, which is subject to such scrutiny, cf. Powers v. Ohio
    Search
  24. b). It may be assumed without deciding that such compliance can be a compelling state interest. See, e. g., Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  25. liability. See Shaw v. Reno
    Search
  26. majority-minority districts, by itself, is sufficient to invoke such scrutiny. See, e. g., Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
    Search
  27. Miller v. Johnson
    Search
  28. districts was sufficient to show that race was a predominant, motivating factor in its redistricting). De Witt v. Wilson
    Search
  29. involving racial gerrymandering challenges to state redistricting efforts in the wake of the 1990 census. See Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  30. United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held Districts 18, 29, and 30 unconstitutional. Vera v. Richards
    Search
  31. supra, at 646. Nor does it apply to all cases of intentional creation of majority-minority districts. See De Witt v. Wilson
    Search
  32. See Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena
    Search
  33. Evaluating Election-District Appearances After Shaw v. Reno
    Search
  34. predominated over racial ones. We have not subjected political gerrymandering to strict scrutiny. See Davis v. Bandemer
    Search
  35. as a legitimate state goal. See Karcher v. Daggett
    Search
  36. cf. Gaffney v. Cummings
    Search
  37. in the commission of that crime, cf. post, at 1032, n. 30 (STEVENS, J., dissenting) (discussing United States v. Armstrong
    Search
  38. as a proxy for political characteristics, a racial stereotype requiring strict scrutiny is in operation. Cf. Powers v. Ohio
    Search
  39. practice of using race as a proxy that the District Court found, based on ample evidence, to be pervasive, see Vera v. Richards
    Search
  40. we assume without deciding that compliance with the results test, as interpreted by our precedents, see, e. g., Growe v. Emison
    Search
  41. F. Supp., at 1343. Cf. Wygant v. Jackson
    Search
  42. in our federal system of each State's sovereign interest in implementing its redistricting plan. See Voinovich v. Quilter
    Search
  43. Growe, supra, at 40 (emphasis added) (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles
    Search
  44. from the Reconstruction to modern times, including violations of the Constitution and of the VRA. See, e. g., Williams v. Dallas
    Search
  45. Miller, 515 U. S., at 926 (quoting Beer v. United
    Search
  46. to eliminate unnecessary and excessive governmental use and reinforcement of racial stereotypes. See, e. g., Georgia v. McCollum
    Search
  47. Edmonson v. Leesville
    Search
  48. Rights Act (VRA) is a compelling state interest. Second, that test can coexist in principle and in practice with Shaw v. Reno
    Search
  49. b) is a compelling state interest. See Shaw v. Hunt
    Search
  50. Syllabus Bush, Governor of Texas, Et Al. V. Vera
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial