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 (113)
  • 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 (113)
  • Document (1031)

Filter by Case/Action Status

Displaying 101 - 113 of 113 Results

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. Taylor: District Court decision denying stay pending appeal (April 18, 2008)

Decision
Case
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. Taylor

National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. Taylor: Decision by the Circuit Court denying stay pending appeal (April 21, 2008)

Decision
Case
National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) v. Taylor

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.

Bartlett v Strickland Decision

Decision
Date
June 4, 2015

South Carolina v. United States: Opinion of the three-judge court

Decision
Case
South Carolina v. United States

Opinion of the three-judge court, with the Court Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh. The Court concludes that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. They also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

Shelby County, AL v. Holder: Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Decision
Case
Shelby County, AL v. Holder

Opinion of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals before Judges Tatel and Griffith and Senior Circuit Judge Williams. Judge Tatel filed the opinion with Judge Williams filing a dissenting opinion.

Wolfson v. Concannon: Order of the Ninth Circuit to Rehear Case En Banc

Decision
Case
Wolfson v. Concannon

Upon the vote of a majority of nonrecused active judges, it is ordered that this case be reheard en banc pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 35(a) and Circuit Rule 35-3. Judges McKeown and Murguia did not participate in the deliberations or vote in this case.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Gonzales District Court’s opinion (May 30, 2008)

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

Pagination

  • First page «
  • Previous page ‹
  • …
  • Page 2
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Current page 6

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