Skip to main content
Home
Campaign Legal Center
Main Menu

Header

  • The Latest
  • Issues
    • Campaign Finance
    • Ethics
    • Redistricting
    • Voting Rights
  • Cases & Actions
  • About
    • Staff
    • Trustees & Advisors
    • Careers
    • Support Our Work

Header Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • Media Center
  • Get Updates
  • Search
  • Donate

Filter by Type

  • Article (0)
  • Case / Action (0)
  • (-) Document (104)
  • Media Mention (0)
  • Press Release (0)

Filter by Issue Area

  • Campaign Finance (232)
  • Ethics (9)
  • (-) Redistricting (44)
  • (-) Voting Rights (65)

Filter by Document Type

  • (-) Decision (104)
  • Document (860)

Filter by Case/Action Status

Displaying 81 - 100 of 104 Results

Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: District court’s amended discovery order (January 8, 2008)

Decision
Case
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas

Willie Ray v. The State of Texas: District court’s decision denying plaintiffs' summary judgment motion (August 7, 2008)

Decision
Case
Willie Ray v. The State of Texas

Bartlett v. Strickland: Supreme Court's decision

Decision
Case
Bartlett v. Strickland

Supreme Court decision. The judgment of the Supreme Court of North Carolina is affirmed.

Veasey v. Perry (Abbott): Supreme Court Order Denying Application to Vacate Stay Pending Appeal

Decision
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

The applications to vacate the stay entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on October 14, 2014, presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are denied. The motion for leave to file the response to the applications under seal with redacted copies for the public record is granted. 

Veasey v. Perry (Abbott): Fifth Circuit's Opinion Granting a Stay Pending Appeal

Decision
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

By this order, the district court enjoined the implementation of Texas Senate Bill 14 (“SB 14”) of the 2011 Regular Session, which requires that voters present certain photographic identification at the polls. The district court also ordered that the State of Texas (“State”) instead implement the laws that were in force before SB 14’s enactment in May of 2011. Based primarily on the extremely fast-approaching election date, we STAY the district court’s judgment pending appeal.

Veasey v. Perry (Abbott): Fifth Circuit's Opinion Denying TTV's Motion

Decision
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

This expedited appeal, which included briefing and oral argument, involves Texas’s recently enacted Voter ID law, which True the Vote supported and sponsored as a public-interest group. Various plaintiffs’ groups and the United States have sued the state, claiming the law violates the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Several other groups were permitted to intervene on behalf of the plaintiffs. True the Vote timely moved to intervene as of right to defend the statute. The United States opposed the motion, and the district judge, without issuing an independent opinion but relying almost exclusively on a Florida court order in a different case, denied intervention. Because True the Vote has not shown that the State of Texas cannot adequately represent its interests in this litigation, we affirm the order denying intervention as of right. 

Veasey v. Perry (Abbott): District Court's Opinion Striking Down the Texas Voter ID Law

Decision
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a), after hearing and carefully considering all the evidence, the Court issues this Opinion as its findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Court holds that SB 14 creates an unconstitutional burden on the right to vote, has an impermissible discriminatory effect against Hispanics and African-Americans, and was imposed with an unconstitutional discriminatory purpose. The Court further holds that SB 14 constitutes an unconstitutional poll tax. 

Veasey v. Abbott: Supreme Court Order Denying Application to Vacate Stay

Decision
Date
April 29, 2016
Case
Veasey v. Abbott

North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina Opinion

Decision
Date
April 25, 2016
Case
North Carolina NAACP v. McCrory

Evenwel v. Abbott: Supreme Court Opinion

Decision
Date
April 4, 2016
Case
Evenwel v. Abbott

The U.S. Supreme Court today unanimously held in Evenwel v. Abbott that all people count for the purpose of drawing voting districts, not just eligible voters.

Whitford v. Nichol: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Opinion and Order on Motion for Summary Judgment

Decision
Date
April 7, 2016
Case
Gill v. Whitford

Shapiro v. McManus: Supreme Court Opinion

Decision
Date
April 4, 2016
Case
Lamone v. Benisek

Whitford v. Nichol: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Order and Opinion Denying Motion to Dismiss

Decision
Date
December 17, 2015
Case
Gill v. Whitford

Whitford v. Nichol: U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin Order Assigning Judges

Decision
Date
September 29, 2015
Case
Gill v. Whitford

LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Order Granting Intervention

Decision
Date
July 8, 2015
Case
LaRoque v. Holder

District Court grants intervention. 

LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Order Denying Motion to Convene Three-Judge Court

Decision
Date
July 8, 2015
Case
LaRoque v. Holder

It is ordered that plaintiffs' application for a three-judge court is denied.

LaRoque v. Holder: District Court’s Opinion Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

Decision
Date
July 8, 2015
Case
LaRoque v. Holder

The Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss case.

Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Supreme Court’s opinion

Decision
Case
Shelby County, AL v. Holder

The Supreme Court’s opinion in Shelby County, AL v. Holder. Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito joined. Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion, in which Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed. 

Northwest Austin MUD v. Gonzales: Supreme Court’s decision

Decision
Case
Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One ("NAMUDNO") v. Holder

Supreme Court's decision. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.  Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Stevens, Scalia, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.

Shelby County, AL v. Holder: District Court’s order denying defendant’s and intervenors’ request for discovery

Decision
Case
Shelby County, AL v. Holder

D.C. District Court’s memorndum opinion and order. The Court orders that the government's request for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) is denied; and it is further ordered that the government and defendant-intervenors shall file an opposition to Shelby County's motion for summary judgment by not later than November 15, 2010; Shelby County may file a reply in support of its motion by not later than December 15, 2010.

Pagination

  • First page «
  • Previous page ‹
  • …
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Current page 5
  • Page 6
  • Next page ›
  • Last page »

Footer menu

  • About CLC
    • Staff
    • Board & Advisors
    • Careers
  • Support Our Work
    • Our Donors
    • Financials
  • Toolkits and Resources
    • DemocracyU
    • Stop Secret Spending
    • Restore Your Vote

Footer Social

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Footer Secondary

  • Contact CLC
  • The Latest
  • Media Center
© Campaign Legal Center 2020

Footer Legal

  • Privacy Policy