Mobile v. Bolden
Retreat From Civil Rights, Vote Dilution, No Guarantee Of Proportional Representation, Discriminatory Effect Vs. Discriminatory Intent
City of Mobile Alabama, et al.
Wiley L. Bolden, et al.
That the city's at-large system of electing commissioners did not discriminate against African American citizens of the city.
Chief Lawyer for Appellant
Charles S. Rhyne
Chief Lawyer for Appellee
James U. Blacksher
Justices for the Court
Harry A. Blackmun, Warren E. Burger, Lewis F. Powell, Jr., William H. Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Potter Stewart (writing for the Court)
William J. Brennan, Jr., Thurgood Marshall, Byron R. White
Date of Decision
22 April 1980
The Supreme Court held that the at-large election system did not discriminate against African American citizens, who could register and vote freely in Mobile.
The case was a strong blow against anti-discriminatory suits. It established that discriminatory effects must be accompanied by intent.
- Moore v. East Cleveland - Sanctity Of The Family, The Dissenting Opinions, Impact
- Mincey v. Arizona - Significance
- Mobile v. Bolden - Further Readings
- Mobile v. Bolden - Retreat From Civil Rights
- Mobile v. Bolden - Vote Dilution
- Mobile v. Bolden - No Guarantee Of Proportional Representation
- Mobile v. Bolden - Discriminatory Effect Vs. Discriminatory Intent
- Mobile v. Bolden - Related Cases
- Other Free Encyclopedias