Beer v. United States Case Brief

Facts of the Case

“Pursuant to § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (), which provides that state or political subdivisions subject to the Act may obtain the approval of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for changes in voting matters when it is found that the change “does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color,” the City of New Orleans brought an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia seeking a judgment declaring that a reapportionment plan for city councilmanic districts did not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color. The District Court refused to approve the plan, which provided for Negro population majorities in two councilmanic districts and a Negro voter majority in one district, holding that (1) the failure of the plan to alter the 1954 city charter provision establishing two at-large city councilmanic seats had the effect, in itself, of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, and (2) the plan would have the effect of abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, since under the plan Negroes would probably be able to elect only one councilman and New Orleans had not demonstrated that the proposed plan was the only feasible plan. New Orleans appealed and asserted that the district court used an incorrect standard when it assessed the effect of the plan.”

Question

Does Oklahoma’s use of midazolam as the initial drug in the execution protocol, the same initial drug used in Clayton Lockett’s execution, violate the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment?

CONCLUSION

0

Case Information

Citation: 425 US 130 (1976)
Reargued: Nov 12, 1975
Decided: Mar 30, 1976
Argued: Mar 26, 1975
Case Brief: 1976