Opinion · Supreme Court of the United States

Williams v. Brown

446 U.S. 236

Type
Opinion
Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1980-04-22
Topic
bankruptcy

How later courts describe this case

  • 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

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Williams v. Brown. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
33 opinions
WILLIAMSv. BROWN,446 U.S. 236(1980)
WILLIAMS ET AL.v. BROWN ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT.
No. 78-357.
Argued March 19, 1979.
Reargued October 29, 1979.
Decided April 22, 1980.
575 F.2d 298, vacated and remanded.
William H. Allenreargued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs wereDonald Harrison, John Michael Clear, andRobert C. CampbellIII.Eric Schnapperreargued the cause for appellees. With him on the briefs wereJ. U. Blacksher, Larry Menefee, andJack Greenberg.Deputy Assistant Attorney General Turnerreargued the cause for the United States asamicus curiaeurging affirmance. On the brief wereSolicitor General McCree, Assistant Attorney General Days, DeputySolicitor General Wallace, Elinor Hadley Stillman, Brian K. Landsberg,Jessica Dunsay Silver, Dennis J. Dimsey, andMiriam 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 inCity of Mobilev.Bolden, ante, p. 55.It is so ordered.

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN, seeante, p. 94.]

[For dissenting opinion of MR. JUSTICE MARSHALL, seeante, 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 thePage 237merits, then, in contrast to the result inCity of Mobilev.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 inCity of Mobilev.Bolden, ante, p. 55, I dissent for the reasons stated in my opinion in that case,ante, p. 94.Page 238