Williams v. Brown
WILLIAMS Et Al. v. BROWN Et Al.
Opinion of the Court
Per Curiam.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.
It is so ordered.
Concurrence
Mr. Justice Blackmun,
concurring.
I, of course, must accept the Court’s vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the *237 merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
Dissent
Mr. Justice White,
dissenting.
Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.
Combined text as published — syllabus, headnotes and all opinions in one document
446 U.S. 236 (1980)
WILLIAMS ET AL.
v.
BROWN ET AL.
No. 78-357.
Supreme Court of United States.
Argued March 19, 1979. Reargued October 29, 1979. Decided April 22, 1980. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
William H. Allen reargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Donald Harrison, John Michael Clear, and Robert C. Campbell III.
Eric Schnapper reargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs were J. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, and Jack Greenberg.
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turner reargued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging affirmance. On the brief were Solicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, Deputy Solicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg, Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, and Miriam R. Eisenstein.
PER CURIAM.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings in light of the decision of the Court announced today in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55.
It is so ordered.
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, see ante, p. 94.]
[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, see ante, p. 103.]
MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN, concurring.
I, of course, must accept the Court's vacation of the judgment and its remand. If, however, we were to reach the *237 merits, then, in contrast to the result in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
MR. JUSTICE WHITE, dissenting.
Because the decision below in this case is based on findings of fact and conclusions of law virtually identical to those in City of Mobile v. Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case, ante, p. 94.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 5 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(noting that the Supreme Court's decisions "confirm the principle that racially discriminatory motivation is a necessary ingredient of a Fifteenth Amendment violation")
-
(recognizing the constitutional right "to equal participation in the electoral process")
-
(interpreting prior version of section 2 to require finding of discriminatory purpose)
-
(“a showing of discriminatory purpose is necessary to impose strict scrutiny on facially neutral classifications having a racially discriminatory impact”)
-
(assuming without deciding such a suit could exist)
Cited by 32 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court1
- U.S. Courts of Appeals10
- Federal District Courts16
- State Highest Courts4
- State Appellate Courts1
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Ala. State Conference of the Naacp v. City of Pleasant Grove
- Joseph Thomas v. Phil Bryant
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Abbott
- Democratic Nat'l Comm. v. Reagan
- In re The Nomination Petitions of Daniel B. Smith, Jr. as a Democratic Candidate for State Representative in the 12th Legislative District Petition of: R. Mahmood and K.R. Costello
- Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Merrill
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.