Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that disproportionate effects alone, absent purposeful discrimination, are insufficient to establish a claim of racial discrimination affecting voting. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), which challenged new city boundaries that excluded virtually all black voters from Tuskegee, Alabama, the court had held that creating electoral districts which disenfranchised blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment. It did not as readily distinguish between intent and results as it would in Mobile.
Attributes | Values |
---|
rdf:type
| |
rdfs:label
| - Mobile v. Bolden (fr)
- Mobile v. Bolden (en)
|
rdfs:comment
| - Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that disproportionate effects alone, absent purposeful discrimination, are insufficient to establish a claim of racial discrimination affecting voting. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), which challenged new city boundaries that excluded virtually all black voters from Tuskegee, Alabama, the court had held that creating electoral districts which disenfranchised blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment. It did not as readily distinguish between intent and results as it would in Mobile. (en)
- Mobile v. Bolden (en français : Ville de Mobile, Alabama et autres contre Bolden et autres) est un arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, rendu le 22 avril 1980 (arrêt U.S. 55). (fr)
|
foaf:name
| - (en)
- City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Wiley L. Bolden, et al. (en)
|
dcterms:subject
| |
Wikipage page ID
| |
Wikipage revision ID
| |
Link from a Wikipage to another Wikipage
| |
Link from a Wikipage to an external page
| |
sameAs
| |
dbp:wikiPageUsesTemplate
| |
Dissent
| - White (en)
- Brennan (en)
- Marshall (en)
|
LawsApplied
| - U.S. Const. amends. XIV, XV; 79 Stat. 437, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 1973 (en)
|
oyez
| |
ParallelCitations
| |
Prior
| |
USPage
| |
USVol
| |
ArgueDate
| |
ArgueYear
| |
case
| |
courtlistener
| |
DecideDate
| |
DecideYear
| |
fullname
| - City of Mobile, Alabama, et al. v. Wiley L. Bolden, et al. (en)
|
Holding
| - Facially neutral electoral districting is constitutional, even if the at-large elections dilute the voting strength of black citizens. (en)
|
justia
| |
Litigants
| |
loc
| |
has abstract
| - Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that disproportionate effects alone, absent purposeful discrimination, are insufficient to establish a claim of racial discrimination affecting voting. In Gomillion v. Lightfoot (1960), which challenged new city boundaries that excluded virtually all black voters from Tuskegee, Alabama, the court had held that creating electoral districts which disenfranchised blacks violated the Fifteenth Amendment. It did not as readily distinguish between intent and results as it would in Mobile. (en)
- Mobile v. Bolden (en français : Ville de Mobile, Alabama et autres contre Bolden et autres) est un arrêt de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, rendu le 22 avril 1980 (arrêt U.S. 55). (fr)
|
Concurrence
| - Stevens (en)
- Blackmun (en)
|
cornell
| |
googlescholar
| |
JoinPlurality
| - Burger, Powell, Rehnquist (en)
|
Plurality
| |
ReargueDate
| |