Bakaj v. Department of Homeland Security

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding when Congress re-enacted the Voting Rights Act, it necessarily adopted Justice Department’s longstanding interpretation of Act’s requirements
• concluding that when “there had been a longstanding administrative interpretation of a statute when Congress re-enacted it, and . . . the legislative history of the re-enactment showed that Congress agreed with that interpretation, . . . Congress had ratified it”
• noting that the VRA “is designed to implement the Fifteenth Amendment and, in some respects, the Fourteenth Amendment”
• noting that the VRA “is designed to implement the Fifteenth Amendment and, in some respects, the Fourteenth Amendment”
• noting that the VRA “is designed to implement the Fifteenth Amendment and, in some respects, the Fourteenth Amendment”
• stating that “it is impermissible to draw inferences of approval from the unexplained inaction of Congress,” but Congress is presumed to have ratified an agency’s interpretation where “the legislative history of the re-enactment showed that Congress agreed with that interpretation”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).