SWASTIKA DISPLAY. See Jurisdiction, 2.
TEXAS. See Voting Rights Act of 1965, 1.
THEFT OF AN AUTOMOBILE. See Constitutional Law, V, 1.
TIME LIMITATIONS ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
COMMISSION ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS. See Civil Rights Act
of 1964, 3, 4.
TIMELINESS OF MOTIONS TO INTERVENE. See Intervention.
TUITION ASSISTANCE. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.
UNDUE HARDSHIP IN ACCOMMODATING EMPLOYEES' RE-
LIGIOUS NEEDS. See Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1.
UNEMPLOYED FATHERS. See Social Security Act, 2.
UNIVERSITIES. See Constitutional Law, III, 1.
UNLAWFUL EMPLOYMENT PRACTICES. See Civil Rights Act of
VALUATION OF SECURITIES. See Investment Company Act of
VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION. See Constitutional Law, II, 3.
VOTING DISCRIMINATION. See Voting Rights Act of 1965.
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965.
1. Determination of Act's coverage of State—Preclusion of judicial
review.—Provision of $ 4 (b) of Act that a determination of Attorney
General or Director of Census that a State is covered by Act "shall not be
reviewable in any court,” absolutely precludes judicial review of such a
determination. Hence District Court and Court of Appeals erred in hold-
ing that they had jurisdiction to review petitioners' claims that Attorney
General and Director of Census (respondents) had erroneously applied
§ 4 (b) in determining that Texas is covered by 1975 amendments to Act
extending its protections to language minorities, such as Mexican-Ameri-
cans. A “bailout” suit under $ 4 (a) to terminate coverage is Texas' sole
remedy. Briscoe v. Bell, p. 404.
2. Reapportionment plan-Attorney General's objection nunc pro tunc.-
Where Attorney General initially failed to interpose timely objection
under $5 of Act to new plan reapportioning South Carolina Senate found
constitutional by District Court for District of South Carolina, his ob-
jection to plan, nunc pro tunc, after District Court for District of Co-
lumbia in subsequent action challenging his failure to object directed him
to consider plan without regard to other District Court's decision, is
invalid, and therefore South Carolina is free to implement such plan.
Morris v. Gressette, p. 491.