Citation network
Reno Vs. Bossier Parish School Bd.
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- May 12, 1997
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
-
Reno v. BossierSearch
-
Parish School Bd. - 520 U.S. 471 (1997) October Term, 1996 Syllabus Reno, Attorney General V. BossierSearch
-
Together with No. 95-1508, Price et al. v. BossierSearch
-
Syllabus bat different evils and, accordingly, to impose very different duties upon the States. See Holder v. HallSearch
-
have the purpose, and will not have the effect, of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race. See Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
into a jurisdiction's motivation in enacting voting changes, courts should look for guidance to Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
these sections to combat different evils and, accordingly, to impose very different duties upon the States, see Holder v. HallSearch
-
Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
City of Rome v. UnitedSearch
-
Likewise, in City of Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
voting practice. Holder v. HallSearch
-
the difficult burden of proving the absence of discriminatory purpose and effect. See, e. g., Elkins v. UnitedSearch
-
See Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
plan might be found to be constitutionally offensive. Id., at 142, n. 14. Among them was our decision in White v. RegesterSearch
-
has been required to establish that the State or political subdivision acted with a discriminatory purpose. See Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
see also Arlington Heights v. MetropolitanSearch
-
Presley v. EtowahSearch
-
see supra, at 480, by dropping a footnote in a Senate Report instead of amending the statute itself. See Pierce v. UnderwoodSearch
-
See also City of Lockhart v. UnitedSearch
-
U. S. 875 , 883 (1988) (citing Hedges v. DixonSearch
-
purpose inquiry ever extends beyond the search for retrogressive intent. See Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. ThompsonSearch
-
Daubert v. MerrellSearch
-
with- 488 out more, suffice to establish that the jurisdiction acted with a discriminatory purpose. Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
chose the more dilutive plan because it better comported with its traditional districting principles, see Miller v. JohnsonSearch
-
discriminatory purpose in cases brought under the Equal Protection Clause for over two decades, see, e. g., Shaw v. RenoSearch
-
cases. See Pleasant Grove v. UnitedSearch
-
see also Busbee v. SmithSearch
-
Port Arthur v. UnitedSearch
-
the official action whether it 'bears more heavily on one race than another.''' 429 U. S., at 266 (citing Washington v. DavisSearch
-
It is so ordered. JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. Although I continue to adhere to the views I expressed in Holder v. HallSearch
-
in those other districts, and perhaps dilutes the influence of the minority group as a whole. See, e. g., Hays v. LouisianaSearch
-
a new plan enacted with the purpose of unconstitutionally diluting minority votes is an unconstitutional plan. Mobile v. BoldenSearch
-
guards against. Allen v. StateSearch
-
It is reason- 495 able to assume that the Constitution would forbid the use of such a plan. See Rogers v. LodgeSearch
-
And compare id., at 62-63 (intentional vote dilution may be illegal under the Fifteenth Amendment) and Gomillion v. LightfootSearch
-
and Beer v. UnitedSearch
-
unconstitutionally diluting minority voting strength, whether or not the plan is retrogressive in its effect. In Shaw v. HuntSearch
-
Either way, it would not normally have much to do with unlawful purpose. See also the discussions in Richmond v. UnitedSearch
-
Pleasant Grove v. UnitedSearch
-
Syllabus Reno, Attorney General V. BossierSearch
-
the States. See Holder v. HallSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial