Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 45,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
James v. Valtierra, 402 U.S. 137 (1971)
What are the constitutional implications of laws that work to the disadvantage of people already at an economic disadvantage? The United States Supreme Court considered that question in James versus Valtierra.
The 1937 United States Housing Act created a federal housing agency authorized to make loans and grants to state agencies for slum clearance and low-rent housing projects. Thereafter, California’s legislature created public-housing authorities in each county and city. 20 years later, California voters adopted Article XXXIV, a state constitutional amendment providing that low-rent housing projects required local voter approval. Voters in the City of San Jose and San Mateo County rejected low-cost housing proposals.
Anita Valtierra and other residents sued San Jose Mayor Ronald James and other government officials, asserting that Article XXXIV was unconstitutional. A three-judge district court panel ruled that Article XXXIV violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and enjoined its enforcement. Mayor James appealed to the United States Supreme Court.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 45,900 case briefs keyed to 984 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Ещё видео!