I.L. v. The State of Alabama

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiffs had not met their burden of showing the amended provisions were reenacted with discriminatory intent, but that the plaintiffs had met this burden as to the provisions that were never amended
• finding that “impediments to public education funding arising from racially discriminatory state laws can constitute ... injury for purposes of standing” (emphasis added)
• “Standing is one of the Article III case or controversy requirements[.]”
• “Standing is one of the Article III case or controversy requirements.”
• “Standing is one of the Article III case or controversy requirements.”
• “Standing is one of the Article III case or controversy requirements.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).