Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Case in United States v Alabama - Research Proposal Example

Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Case in United s v Alabama, (1960) Analysis of U.S. Supreme Court Case in United States v Alabama, (1960) The 1960 case of the United States versus Alabama was a watershed case in American history. The case was brought by the United States against the State of Alabama. The case was intended to ask the Supreme Court to offer injunctive and declaratory relief according to the Civil Rights Act of 1957. The State of Alabama is alleged to have passed electoral laws, which were deemed discriminatory.

The District court had dismissed the claim by stating that the Civil Rights Act of 1957 did not offer grounds on which the suit could be brought. The case was brought before the Court of Appeal after the Civil Rights Act had been amended in order to allow such action to be brought. The Supreme Court in its ruling on the case depended upon the revised version of the 1957 Act and vacated the judgments of the lower courts. The action was brought against the State of Alabama, Board of Registrars of Alabama and as individual respondents (Buono, 2004).

Since the registrars had been sued in their capacity as registrars the lower court ruled that since they had ceased from their functions in their offices they could not be sued in their official capacities. The lower court held that even if they had still been registrars, the United States had no right to sue them since the board of registrars could not be sued in its capacity as a board of registrars. Similar cases like the American Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council and Reynolds v.

United States among others followed the principle that cases that are brought before a court of law should and must be decided by the prevailing law even if they had been decided at an earlier time or in lower courts with another version of the law. The plaintiff alleged that the case of United States v. Alabama ought to be decided upon the principles of the amended 1957 Act against discrimination. The Supreme Court ordered the case to be decided according to the wishes of the plaintiff according to the revised 1957 Act and ordered the District Court to hear the court.

The ruling of the court was made in view of certain amendments. According to the Section one of the Fifteenth amendment of the constitution, it is unlawful to deprive any citizen of the United States the rights to universal suffrage because of race color or prior servitude conditions by either denial or abridgment of the law. Section 42 of the US Constitution stipulates that all American citizens who have the required qualifications that would entitle them to suffrage in any of the elections whether national state or county, will reserve the right to exercise that right at all elections without the authorities giving due regard to racial makeup, color, or prior servitude circumstances.

This provision is not subject to any contrary constitution, legislation, practice, or regulation of any territory or state (Gurvitch, 2001). Section 42 also provides that the state through the office of the attorney general must institute civil proceedings against any person believed to be about to act in a manner that would deprive another person of this right. The attorney general ought to institute suits in order to have injunctions, restraint, or whatever action deemed necessary in order to uphold this right.

The section also puts it upon the United States to undertake to cover all the costs associated in bringing such as suit. The denial of the right of a private person of the right of universal suffrage is deemed an infraction against the people of the United States (Gurvitch, 2001). Section 601 of the constitution states the liability of the person involved in the deprivation of the rights of suffrage guaranteed to everyone by the constitution. The section also provides that any action that is undertaken in order to deprive any citizen of their voting rights under section a will be deemed to have been performed by the respective state which may be conjoined in the suit.

The officials that presided over the action will also be conjoined in the civil action in instances in which they are still in office. In instances in which the state official has resigned from the office, the state will be sued on behalf of the official who is assumed to have been acting on behalf of the state (Turkel, 2006). This ruling is important in that it gives priority to the rights of all people without due regard to race, and social status. It is also important in that it places a constitutional responsibility upon the state to uphold these rights.

References Buono, R. (2004). Social Problems, Law and Society. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. Gurvitch, G, (2001). Power, Politics, and Crime. New York: Transaction Publishers. Turkel, G. (2006). Law and Society: Critical Approaches. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.