# United States v. Uvalde Consolidated Independent School District

> Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · October 9, 1980 · 625 F.2d 547

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466883

## Case

- **Full name:** UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UVALDE CONSOLIDATED INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Et Al., Defendants-Appellees
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- **Decided:** October 9, 1980
- **Citations:** 625 F.2d 547
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hill
- **Judges:** Hill, Rubin, Anderson
- **Cited by:** 61 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466883

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- stating that "the Fourteenth Amendment clearly extends to protection of any group of persons invidiously discriminated against by state law including groups identifiable by ethnic, national origin, or linguistic characteristics ”

## Opinion text

JAMES C. HILL, Circuit Judge,
concurring specially:
In Part III of his opinion, my brother RUBIN has ably attempted to resolve the conceded “ambiguity” of Bolden, viz., whether the Fifteenth Amendment applies to voting abuses of the sort here alleged. The entire discussion is dictum, however, because the panel — properly—rests its holding on the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West Supp.1980), as reenacted in 1975, derives from the Fourteenth *557 Amendment, and since all Justices in Bol-den agreed that that Amendment reaches multimember districts adopted “invidiously to minimize or cancel out the voting potential of racial or ethnic minorities,” 100 S.Ct. at 1499 (plurality opinion), I concur in the result of Part III.
I join the remainder of the panel opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9466883. Public record. Not legal advice.