UNITED STATES

v.

BROCKAMP, ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MCGILL, DECEASED; AND UNITED STATES V. SCOTT

Citator

Cited By

• Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 520 U.S. 471 (U.S. 1997)
  …istrict Court did, however, reject appellants’ related argument that a court “must still consider evidence of a section 2 violation as evidence of discriminatory purpose under section 5.” Id., at 445. We noted probable jurisdiction on June 3, 1996. 517 U. S. 1232. II The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (Act), 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq., was enacted by Congress in 1964 to “attac[k] the blight of voting discrimination” across the Nation. S. Rep. No. 97- [*477] 417, 2d Sess., p. 4 (1982); South Carolina v. Katzen…
• Glickman v. Wileman Bros. & Elliott, Inc., 521 U.S. 457 (U.S. 1997)
  …self has chosen to market,” id., at 1136, despite the plaintiff’s objections to the content of the advertising,9 the court found no violation of his First Amendment rights. We granted the Secretary’s petition for certiorari to resolve the conflict, 517 U. S. 1232 (1996), and now reverse. III In challenging the constitutionality of the generic advertising program in the Court of Appeals, respondents relied, in part, on their claimed disagreement with the content of some of the generic advertising. 58 F. 3d,…
• Reno v. Bossier Parish Sch. Bd., 528 U.S. 320 (U.S. 2000)
  …tion (since the adopted plan, unlike the NAACP’s proposed plan, required no redrawing of precinct lines). Id., at 447. Appellants filed jurisdictional statements in this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 517 U. S. 1232 (1996). On appeal, we agreed with the District Court that a proposed voting change cannot be denied preclearance simply because it violates §2, but disagreed with the proposition that all evidence of a dilutive (but nonretrogressive) effect forbidd…