District court decisions containing unconstitutional Virginia laws requiring racial representation in divorce decrees and racial segregation of names on registration, voting tax, and certificate of residence lists, as well as on evaluation lists, are upheld. Florida`s Replevin laws, which allow installment sellers or others claiming ownership to arrange for the seizure of property without notice or opportunity to be heard on the issues, violate the due process clause. Arkansas regulations, which authorized the governor to close public schools and hold a vote on the integration of schools, as well as to withhold public funds allocated to those schools upon their closure, and to make those funds available to other public schools or private nonprofit schools to which students from a closed school could be transferred, violated the due process and equal protection provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment. Alabama laws and Montgomery City ordinances requiring the separation of « white » and « colored » races on city buses violated the Fourteenth Amendment equality clause. The Texas Constitution and bylaws, as well as the City Constitution that limit the right to vote in municipal bond issuance elections to persons who have taxed real property in the electoral district during the election year, violate the Fourteenth Amendment`s equality clause. The court struck down laws in Alabama and Arkansas requiring life imprisonment without parole for juvenile offenders convicted of murder. Three separate lists of Supreme Court decisions are listed below: Part I lists cases where state constitutional or legislative provisions are unconstitutional, Part II lists cases where local laws are unconstitutional, and Part III lists cases where state or local laws are found to be excluded by federal law. Since Congress is waiting for the adoption of the law on autonomy on the 24th. In December 1973, District of Columbia laws enacted by Congress were treated as federal laws (and listed in a previous schedule), and District of Columbia laws enacted by the District of Columbia government were treated as state laws.
Each case is briefly summarized and the votes of the judges are indicated, unless the decision of the Court has been taken unanimously. Judges who write or approve the majority or majority opinion are listed under « Concurring Judges, » whether or not they write separate concurring opinions, and judges who disagree with the majority or majority opinion, but who write separate opinions that agree on the result, are listed under « Judges Strongly Agree. » Previous editions included only two lists, one for cases where state laws were unconstitutional or anticipated by federal law, and the other for local laws that were unconstitutional or anticipated. The 2002 edition added the third category because of the different types of preemption cases. State or local laws provided for by federal law are void not because they violate any provision of the Constitution, but because they conflict with a federal law or treaty and by the application of the primacy clause. Pre-emption cases previously listed in one of the first two categories have been moved to the third. Some cases involving more than one institution are classified in more than one category. Both sections of the Code and statutory notices are based on provisions of federal law. In the case of a non-positive legal title, it is a decision to classify the issuers of the Code, whether a provision is established as a section of the Code or as legal advice. For more information, see About Classification. In the case of a positive legal title, only Congress may add a section to the title or amend a section of the title, but if Congress adopts a provision whose purpose is closely related to that of an existing section, the drafters of the Code may designate the provision as a legal opinion under that section. The insertion of a provision as legal advice under a section of a positive or non-positive title does not affect the validity or legal force of the provision; That is, a provision established as a legal annotation has the same validity and legal force as a provision classified as a section of the Code.
California laws granting California residents oil and gas exploration licenses inside and outside a three-mile border belt are null and void. California does not own the three-mile fringe belt along its coast; The federal government, not the state, has preponderant rights and power over this belt and total domination over the resources of the soil beneath this water area. The United States is therefore entitled to an executive order prohibiting California and all persons claiming it from continuing to enter the territory in violation of United States rights. Washington`s laws requiring state employees to swear that they are not subversives, and requiring teachers to swear to promote respect for the flag and institutions of the United States and Washington, respect for law and order, and undivided allegiance to the federal government, are void because of vagueness.