TEXAS
v.
UNITED STATES

U.S. | 1966-05-02
No. 1218
Mr. Justice Black dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra., Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart, dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.
384 U.S. 155 Supreme Court of the United States (1966) Caution
Also reported at: 16 L. Ed. 2d 434 · 86 S. Ct. 1383 · 1966 U.S. LEXIS 1724 · SCDB 1965-100
Cited by 25 cases
Topics
Motion To Affirm Per Curiam Opinion

Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Motion To Affirm cases and more on FLexlaw

Per_curiam
Per Curiam.

Per Curiam.

The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed. Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, 383 U. S. 663.

Mr. Justice Black dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

Mr. Justice Harlan, joined by Mr. Justice Stewart, dissents for the reasons given in his dissenting opinion in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections, supra.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • Holt Civic Club v. City OF Tuscaloosa, 439 U.S. 60 (U.S. 1978)
    …hout the franchise is a fundamental violation of the due process clause.” Brief for Appellants 28. Support for this proposition is alleged to come from United States v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234 (WD Tex.) (three-judge District Court), summarily aff’d, 384 U. S. 155 (1966), which held that conditioning the franchise of otherwise qualified voters on payment of a poll tax denied due process to many Texas voters. Appellants’ argument proceeds from the assumption, earlier shown to be erroneous, supra, at 66-70, tha…
  • Hill v. Stone, 421 U.S. 289 (U.S. 1975)
    …he State’s tax laws. This argument is difficult to credit. The use of the franchise to compel compliance with other, independent state objectives is questionable in any context. See United States v. Texas, 252 P. Supp. 234, 253-254 (WD Tex.), aff’d, 384 U. S. 155 (1966). It seems particularly dubious [*300] here, since under the State’s construction of the rendering requirement, an individual will be given the right to vote if he renders any property at all, no matter how trivial. Those rendering solely to e…
  • Jones v. Governor of Florida, 975 F.3d 1016 (11th Cir. 2020)
    …the 83 Case: 20-12003 Date Filed: 09/11/2020 Page: 84 of 200 fundamental personal rights included within the concept of liberty as protected by the due process clause." United States v. Texas, 252 F. Supp. 234, 250 (W.D. Tex.), aff'd per curiam, 384 U.S. 155, 86 S. Ct. 1383 (1966). The right to vote becomes a nullity once people were barred from ever getting on the voter rolls. Thus, States cannot prevent eligible citizens from registering to vote without giving them due process of law. See Hall v. Loui…

Previewing 3 of 8 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.

Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence

Authorities Cited

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw