2013 Shelby County v. Holder

URI: https://gptkb.org/entity/2013_Shelby_County_v._Holder

GPTKB entity

Statements (113)

Predicate	Object
gptkbp:instance_of	gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkbp:advertising	Generated significant public discourse
gptkbp:argued_on	February 27, 2013 Challenged the constitutionality of preclearance requirements
gptkbp:argument_presented_by	gptkb:United_States_Department_of_Justice gptkb:Shelby_County,_Alabama
gptkbp:case_analysis	Used as a case study in law schools. Analyzed for its implications on civil rights. Analyzed in legal journals Criticized by civil rights advocates Frequently studied in law schools Implications for future elections Influenced state-level voting legislation Criticized for undermining voting protections. Implications for federalism and civil rights. Continues to be relevant in discussions of voting rights. Analyzed for its long-term effects on democracy Relevant to discussions on race and voting rights
gptkbp:case_number	Documented in legal archives
gptkbp:case_outcome	5-4 ruling Impact on minority voting rights Effect on minority communities and voting access. Struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. Invalidated formula used to determine jurisdictions subject to preclearance Invalidated formula for determining jurisdictions needing preclearance Altered the landscape of voting rights protections Invalidated the coverage formula in Section 4(b)
gptkbp:case_significance	Considered a landmark case in voting rights. Landmark case in voting rights history Historical significance in the context of civil rights.
gptkbp:case_types	gptkb:Constitution Constitutional law case Supported by conservative legal groups Arguments presented by both sides Supported by various civil rights organizations.
gptkbp:consequences	Legal impact on federalism and state rights
gptkbp:decided_by	gptkb:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States
gptkbp:decision_vote	5-4 ruling
gptkbp:dissenting_opinion	gptkb:Justice_Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg Opposed by many voting rights advocates. Ginsburg argued that the decision undermined protections against racial discrimination in voting. Opposed by liberal legal organizations
gptkbp:economic_policy	Debate over state versus federal control of elections. Impact on public policy regarding voting rights
gptkbp:effect_on_voting	Increased state autonomy in voting regulations
gptkbp:effective_date	June 25, 2013
gptkbp:election	5-4
gptkbp:government_response	Mixed reactions from political leaders.
gptkbp:has_implications_for	Potential for voter suppression concerns Increased state autonomy in election laws
gptkbp:historical_context	gptkb:Civil_Rights_Movement Part of a long history of voting rights struggles. Part of ongoing debate over voting rights in the U. S.
https://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#label	2013 Shelby County v. Holder
gptkbp:impact	Led to various state-level voting law changes. States no longer required to seek federal approval for changes to voting laws
gptkbp:implications_for_minority_voting	Potential negative impact on minority voter turnout.
gptkbp:implications_for_voting_rights	Raised concerns about voter suppression.
gptkbp:involved_parties	gptkb:Shelby_County,_Alabama Eric Holder, Attorney General
gptkbp:is_cited_in	gptkb:570_U._S._529_(2013)
gptkbp:is_debated_in	Ongoing political debate over voting rights
gptkbp:judged_by	Judgment delivered by Chief Justice Roberts
gptkbp:judges	Justices Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito Justices Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Kennedy
gptkbp:judicial_review	Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan Judicial review of federal laws Impact on judicial review of voting laws. Judicial review of voting rights legislation. Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsburg Examined the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act provisions
gptkbp:legacy	Legacy of the case continues to influence voting rights discussions.
gptkbp:legal_context	gptkb:Section_5_of_the_Voting_Rights_Act Voting rights and federalism
gptkbp:legal_framework	Influenced subsequent Supreme Court decisions. Reflects a conservative judicial philosophy. Challenged the legal framework of the Voting Rights Act Reflects judicial philosophy on federalism Influenced judicial approaches to voting rights cases
gptkbp:legal_issue	gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 Constitutionality of preclearance requirement Focused on states' rights and federalism.
gptkbp:legal_outcome	Struck down key provisions of the Voting Rights Act Significant reduction in federal oversight.
gptkbp:legal_representation	Criticized for undermining protections against racial discrimination in voting
gptkbp:legislation	gptkb:Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965 gptkb:Voting_Rights_Amendment_Act_of_2014 Prompted discussions on future voting rights legislation. Voting Rights Advancement Act proposed
gptkbp:media_coverage	Significant media attention Extensive media coverage at the time of the decision.
gptkbp:outcome	Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was struck down Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act struck down
gptkbp:precedent	Set a precedent for future voting rights litigation Influenced future voting rights cases Set a precedent for future voting rights litigation. Influenced future voting rights litigation
gptkbp:public_awareness	Increased public awareness of voting rights issues.
gptkbp:public_perception	gptkb:Chief_Justice_John_Roberts gptkb:Justice_Anthony_Kennedy Kennedy argued that the coverage formula was outdated.
gptkbp:public_reaction	Mixed reactions from civil rights groups Controversial decision Controversial and widely debated.
gptkbp:related_cases	gptkb:Brnovich_v._Democratic_National_Committee gptkb:Anderson_v._Celebrezze gptkb:Bush_v._Gore gptkb:Northwest_Austin_Municipal_Utility_District_No._1_v._Holder
gptkbp:scholarly_analysis	Extensive legal analysis and commentary Extensively analyzed in legal journals Extensively analyzed in legal journals. Debate among scholars regarding its implications.
gptkbp:significance	Significant change in federal oversight of state voting laws