The Supreme Court on Tuesday considered a case involving the effect of districting decisions on dilution of minority group votes, and a Fourth Amendment suit that asks whether consenting to allow a confidential police informant to enter a home is the same as consenting to entry by police officers. A third case revisited the Court’s Sixth Amendment jurisprudence in the context of a judge’s fact-finding to determine whether a defendant should serve concurrent or consecutive sentences.
The voting rights case, Bartlett v. Strickland, concerns claims of vote dilution under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which protects minority voters who, in the words of the statute, “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
