Cases by Issue - Live Dispute

Texas v. United States

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:14:46 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

97-29

Appellee

United States

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Texas

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1994-2005)

Opinion

523 U.S. 296 (1998)

Argued

Wednesday, January 14, 1998

Decided

Tuesday, March 31, 1998

Advocates

Paul R. Q. Wolfson (Department of Justice, argued the cause for the appellees)

Javier Aguilar (Argued the cause for the appellant)

Facts of the Case

In 1995, the Texas Legislature enacted Chapter 39. Chapter 39 holds local school boards accountable to the State for student achievement in the public schools. The State Commissioner of Education may select from various sanctions, including the appointment of a master or a management team and the contracting out of services, when a school district falls short of Chapter 39's accreditation criteria. Under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Texas submitted Chapter 39 to the United States Attorney General for a determination whether any of the sanctions effected voting and thus required preclearance. Ultimately, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights cautioned that such sanctions implementation might violate section 5. Subsequently, Texas sought a declaration District Court that section 5 did not apply to such sanctions. The court concluded that Texas's claim was not ripe.

Question

Is Texas's claim for a declaratory judgment that Chapter 39's authorized sanctions against school districts for failure to meet mandated educational achievement levels do not need preclearance ripe for adjudication?

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for United States, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

No. In a unanimous opinion delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Court held that Texas's claim is not ripe for adjudication. The Court's holding turning on the fact that Texas did not indicate any school district in which an application of Chapter 39 was "foreseen or even likely." Justice Scalia wrote for the Court that, "we find it too speculative whether the problem Texas presents will ever need solving; we find the legal issues Texas raises not yet fit for our consideration, and the hardship to Texas of biding its time insubstantial."

Renne v. Geary

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:16:20 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

90-769

Petitioner

Renne

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Geary

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1990-1991)

Opinion

501 U.S. 312 (1991)

Argued

Tuesday, April 23, 1991

Decided

Monday, June 17, 1991

Advocates

Cedric C. Chao (on behalf of California Democratic Party, et al., as amici curiae, supporting the Respondents)

Arlo Hale Smith (on behalf of the Respondents)

Dennis Aftergut (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Renne, 3 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Asarco Inc. v. Kadish

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:26:11 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

87-1661

Petitioner

Asarco Inc.

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Kadish

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Decided By

Rehnquist Court (1988-1990)

Opinion

490 U.S. 605 (1989)

Argued

Monday, February 27, 1989

Decided

Tuesday, May 30, 1989

Advocates

David S. Baron (on behalf of the Respondents)

Daniel M. Gribbon (on behalf of the Petitioners)

Christopher J. Wright (as Amicus Curiae in Support of Respondents)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 6 votes for Kadish, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank v. Roper

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:04 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-904

Petitioner

Deposit Guaranty Nat. Bank

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Roper

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 326 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 7 votes for Roper, 2 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

United States Parole Comm'n v. Geraghty

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:11:00 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

78-572

Petitioner

United States Parole Comm'n

Petitioner Type

Petitioner

Respondent

Geraghty

Respondent Type

Respondent

Heard By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Decided By

Burger Court (1975-1981)

Opinion

445 U.S. 388 (1980)

Argued

Tuesday, October 2, 1979

Decided

Wednesday, March 19, 1980

Advocates

Kent L. Jones (on behalf of the petitioners)

Kenneth N. Flaxman (on behalf of respondent)

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 5 votes for United States Parole Comm'n, 4 vote(s) against
Legal provision: Article 3, Section 2, Paragraph 1: Case or Controversy Requirement

None

Golden v. Zwickler

Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:39:30 +0000

Case Basics

Docket No.

370

Appellee

Zwickler

Petitioner Type

Appellee

Appellant

Golden

Respondent Type

Appellant

Heard By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Decided By

Warren Court (1967-1969)

Opinion

394 U.S. 103 (1969)

Argued

Thursday, January 16, 1969

Decided

Monday, March 3, 1969

Facts of the Case

None

Question

None

Conclusion

Decision: 9 votes for Golden, 0 vote(s) against
Legal provision:

None