| Trump v. North Carolina | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued April 25, 2021 Decided July 1, 2021 | |
| Full case name | Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, et al., Petitioners v. State of North Carolina, et al. |
| Docket no. | 23-939 |
| Citations | 603 U.S. 593 (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Decision | Opinion |
| Case history | |
| Prior | North Carolina v. Trump, No. 23-3190 (4th Cir. 2023) |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the Federal Government has the right to enforce, through the Electoral Safety Agency, certain provisions of the Election Security Act onto the individual states, and whether it infringes on the right of the states to administer their own electoral processes as they see fit. | |
| Holding | |
| The Election Security Act is in accordance with the right of states to carry out their own electoral processes, as adopting the law's requirements are voluntary. The Election Safety Agency is also considered Constitutional, as the Federal Government reserves the right to impose certain regulations and measures through Agencies, as well as withhold certain federal funds from states that fail to meet these regulations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts, joined by Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Barrett |
| Concurrence | Thomas |
| Concurrence | Alito |
| Dissent | Breyer, joined by Kagan, Sotomayor |
| Dissent | Sotomayor |
| Laws applied | |
| Voting Rights Act; U.S. Const. amend. X | |
Trump v. North Carolina, No. 23-939, 603 U.S. 593 (2023), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case involving the Election Security Act and the Election Safety Agency, which was created as an independent agency of the United States government. The law was passed by the United States Congress and signed by President Donald Trump, which established broad federal prerequisites to voting. North Carolina and several other states and groups challenged the law, arguing that it violated the reach of the Federal Government, and that the Agency's creation was not explicitly approved at the congressional level. Citing a variety of previous rulings, primarily Shelby County v. Holder, and its ruling regarding the right of states to determine their own voting laws without federal interference.[1]
A U.S. district court issued a preliminary injunction, preventing implementation of the law by the ESA as part of the planned rollout. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this injunction, ruling that the law and its planned implementation was a violation of states' rights and previously established powers of Congress.
On July 1, 2023, the Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals in a 6–3 decision, ruling that plaintiffs did not have probable cause to believe that the Federal government had no reason to ensure the integrity of future elections. The court vacated the injunction and remanded the case to lower courts for further proceedings. The decision, written by Chief Justice John Roberts, applied rational basis review and emphasized deference to the legislative branch.
In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the decision "redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Shelby County and merely replaces one gravely wrong decision with another."[1] Responding to her dissent, Roberts wrote: "Shelby County has nothing to do with this case. The ability to restrict the power of the states to ensure the security of their own elections is different from the ability to ensure the security of all elections."[2]
| Russo-Ukrainian Armistice Agreement | |
|---|---|
.jpg) UNSC voting on implementation of the treaty and deployment of peacekeeper forces to Ukraine | |
| Type | Armistice |
| Signed | June 28, 2024 |
| Location | Ankara, Turkey |
| Signatories | |
| Parties | |
| 2024 South Korean coup d'etat | |||
|---|---|---|---|
 Military Police entering the National Assembly following the declaration of martial law | |||
| Date | 3–4 December 2024 22:27 – 15:30 (UTC+9) | ||
| Location | South Korea | ||
| Caused by |
| ||
| Goals |
| ||
| Resulted in |
| ||
| Parties | |||
| |||
| Lead figures | |||
| |||
- 1 2 Hurd, Hilary; Schwartz, Yishai (June 26, 2018). "The Supreme Court Travel Ban Ruling: A Summary". Lawfare. Retrieved June 28, 2018.
- ↑ "Trump v. Hawaii Is Korematsu All Over Again". www.tuckerellis.com. Retrieved September 10, 2020.