Igartua De La Rosa v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that UOCAVA’s distinction between “those who reside overseas and those who move anywhere within the United States” does not affect a fundamental right
• finding that those “who previously voted in presidential elections while residing elsewhere” were not a suspect class
• stating that “[o]nly a ... constitutional amendment or a grant of statehood to Puerto Rico, therefore, can provide [U.S. citizens residing in Puerto Rico] the right to vote in the presidential election which they seek”
• explaining that the UOCAVA “does not distinguish between those who reside overseas and those who take up residence in Puerto Rico, but between those who reside overseas and those who move anywhere within the United States”
• holding that ICCPR is not privately enforceable
• holding that ICCPR is not privately enforceable

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).