United States v. Hays case summary
515 U.S. 737 (1995)
Constitutional Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant State sought to overturn the judgment of a United States district court, which held that the State's redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of appellee voters under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
FACTS:
-The State's congressional redistricting plan was challenged by the voters, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as being a racially discriminatory gerrymandering that was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-However, none of the voters lived in the district that was the primary focus of their appeal.
-The court found that the voters had standing and that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional.
-The District Court's judgment was vacated, and the court held that the voters had no standing.
HOLDING:
-The Court held that to have standing, a litigant is required to have a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a generalized grievance.
ANALYSIS:
-Only those who were personally denied equal treatment by the challenged discriminatory conduct had standing to challenge the alleged discrimination.
-Because the voters presented no evidence that they were personally subjected to a racial classification, they had no standing, and their complaint was dismissed.
CONCLUSION: The Court vacated the judgment of the district court, which held that the State's congressional redistricting plan was unconstitutional. The Court remanded the action to the district court with instructions that the complaint was to be dismissed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
515 U.S. 737 (1995)
Constitutional Law
PROCEDURAL HISTORY: Appellant State sought to overturn the judgment of a United States district court, which held that the State's redistricting plan violated the Fourteenth Amendment rights of appellee voters under the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
FACTS:
-The State's congressional redistricting plan was challenged by the voters, under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as being a racially discriminatory gerrymandering that was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
-However, none of the voters lived in the district that was the primary focus of their appeal.
-The court found that the voters had standing and that the redistricting plan was unconstitutional.
-The District Court's judgment was vacated, and the court held that the voters had no standing.
HOLDING:
-The Court held that to have standing, a litigant is required to have a concrete and particularized injury as opposed to a generalized grievance.
ANALYSIS:
-Only those who were personally denied equal treatment by the challenged discriminatory conduct had standing to challenge the alleged discrimination.
-Because the voters presented no evidence that they were personally subjected to a racial classification, they had no standing, and their complaint was dismissed.
CONCLUSION: The Court vacated the judgment of the district court, which held that the State's congressional redistricting plan was unconstitutional. The Court remanded the action to the district court with instructions that the complaint was to be dismissed.
---
Interested in learning how to get the top grades in your law school classes? Want to learn how to study smarter than your competition? Interested in transferring to a high ranked school?
No comments:
Post a Comment