§Why CasetextPricing

State of Florida v. United States of America et al

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

21 Cited authorities

  1. Coleman v. Court of Appeals of Maryland

    566 U.S. 30 (2012)   Cited 1,263 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there was an insufficient nexus "between self-care leave and gender discrimination by state employers" to validly abrogate state sovereign immunity

  2. City of Boerne v. Flores

    521 U.S. 507 (1997)   Cited 1,803 times   21 Legal Analyses
    Holding that RFRA is unconstitutional in so far as it permits suits against state actors

  3. TRW Inc. v. Andrews

    534 U.S. 19 (2001)   Cited 1,191 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding a cardinal principal of statutory interpretation is that “no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant”

  4. Miller v. Johnson

    515 U.S. 900 (1995)   Cited 489 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that racial considerations are subject to strict scrutiny when they subordinate "traditional race-neutral districting principles"

  5. League v. Perry

    548 U.S. 399 (2006)   Cited 275 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that political gerrymandering is unconstitutional

  6. Nw. Austin Mun. Util. Dist. No. One v. Holder

    557 U.S. 193 (2009)   Cited 194 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district at issue was eligible to seek bailout under the Voting Rights Act and therefore "not reach[ing] the constitutionality of § 5"

  7. South Carolina v. Katzenbach

    383 U.S. 301 (1966)   Cited 654 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a state is not a person entitled to due process under the fifth amendment

  8. Katzenbach v. Morgan

    384 U.S. 641 (1966)   Cited 504 times
    Holding that likely discrimination against Puerto Ricans in areas other than voting supported statute abolishing literacy test as qualification for voting

  9. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd.

    520 U.S. 471 (1997)   Cited 195 times
    Holding that, in cases brought under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Arlington Heights framework should guide a court's inquiry into whether a jurisdiction had a discriminatory purpose in enacting a voting change

  10. Oregon v. Mitchell

    400 U.S. 112 (1970)   Cited 387 times
    Holding inter alia that Congress could set the age requirement for national elections but not state or local elections

  11. Section 1973 - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973   Cited 1,593 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that no change in voting takes effect until precleared

  12. Section 1973b - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973b   Cited 256 times
    Specifying jurisdictions where § 5 applies

  13. Section 1973l - Transferred

    42 U.S.C. § 1973l   Cited 63 times
    Defining the words "vote" and "voting"