Search Tips
30 shown of 357 entities
13 columns hidden
Title | Date added | Date modified | Template | Question Presented | Legal Issue(s) | Country | Language of Decision | Date of decision | Legal Issue and/or Topic | Language |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Gugum Ridho Putra v. Indonesia | Jul 28, 2026 | Jul 28, 2026 | Judgment | Can Indonesian political candidates alter their "self-image" by posting and utilizing pictures and videos to substantively polish or change their political image? Does the Indonesian voter have a right to truthful information about candidates that is violated by excessive "self-image" manipulation done through AI technology? |
| Indonesia |
| Jan 2, 2025 | ||
Călin Georgescu v. Romania | Jul 28, 2026 | Jul 28, 2026 | Judgment | Did the Constitutional Court of Romania err in annulling the first round of elections or infringe upon Georgescu's right to a free election? |
| Romania |
| Mar 6, 2025 | ||
Evandro Sá Barreto Leitão v. André Fernandes de Moura | Jul 28, 2026 | Jul 28, 2026 | Judgment | Did defendant Leitao violate Brazilian Electoral Law when he posted and disseminated artificial intelligence generated videos of international celebrities including Barack Obama, Taylor Swift, Tom Cruise, and Cristiano Ronaldo endorsing his 2024 mayoral campaign on his TikTok profile? |
| Brazil |
| May 8, 2026 | ||
Partido Liberal v. Ricardo Pereira | Jul 28, 2026 | Jul 28, 2026 | Judgment | Was the defendant Pereira liable for generating and disseminating an AI deepfake image masquerading as a “leaked photo”, which falsely portrayed a group of Brazilian politicians meeting over brunch? |
| Brazil |
| Jun 8, 2026 | ||
Allen v. Milligan | Jul 15, 2026 | Jul 15, 2026 | Judgment | Whether Alabama's 2021 congressional redistricting plan (HB1) — which created only one majority-Black district out of seven in a state that is 27% Black — violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 8, 2023 | ||
Abbott v. Perez | Jul 14, 2026 | Jul 14, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the 2013 Texas congressional and state House redistricting plans violated the Equal Protection Clause (racial gerrymandering), Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (vote dilution), and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments (intentional discrimination) — and specifically whether the district court erred by finding that the 2011 discriminatory intent "carried over" into the 2013 plans enacted by the Legislature; holding that certain districts were racial gerrymanders where race was the predominant factor; finding Section 2 vote dilution in certain districts where plaintiffs could not demonstrate that an additional compact minority opportunity district was possible; and applying the wrong legal standard in distinguishing between racial motivation and partisan motivation in redistricting. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 25, 2018 | ||
McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission | Jul 14, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the Federal Election Campaign Act's (FECA) aggregate contribution limits — which cap the total amount an individual may contribute to all federal candidates and political committees combined in a two-year election cycle — violated the First Amendment by restricting political speech and association beyond what was necessary to prevent quid pro quo corruption. The specific question was whether the aggregate limits were "closely drawn" to the government's anti-circumvention interest, or whether they constituted an unconstitutional "outright ban" on further contributions to additional candidates and committees — particularly given that the base limits already prevented any single donor from giving more than the statutory maximum to any individual candidate or committee. |
| United States of America |
| Apr 2, 2014 | ||
Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz for Senate | Jul 14, 2026 | Jul 14, 2026 | Judgment | Whether Section 304 of BCRA — which limits the amount of post-election contributions that a campaign may use to repay a candidate's personal loans to the campaign — violated the First Amendment by burdening core political speech. The specific question was whether the Government could demonstrate that the loan-repayment limitation was "closely drawn" to a sufficiently important interest — namely, preventing quid pro quo corruption or its appearance — given that the limitation deters candidates from loaning money to their campaigns by increasing the risk that such loans will not be fully repaid. |
| United States of America |
| May 16, 2022 | ||
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission | Jul 14, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the two principal features of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) — (1) the soft-money ban on national, state, and local political parties (Title I), and (2) the regulation of electioneering communications by corporations and unions, including disclosure requirements (Title II) — violated the First Amendment's protections of free speech and association. Subsidiary issues included whether BCRA exceeded Congress's Elections Clause authority, violated principles of federalism, violated equal protection by treating political parties differently from interest groups, and whether specific provisions (including the ban on contributions by minors, the "choice" provision requiring parties to choose between coordinated and independent expenditures, and various disclosure requirements) were constitutional. |
| United States of America |
| Dec 10, 2003 | ||
Federal Election Committee v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee | Jul 14, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether FECA's limits on a political party's coordinated expenditures — spending made by a party in cooperation, consultation, or concert with a candidate — are constitutional under the First Amendment as a means of preventing circumvention of the base contribution limits. Specifically, whether a party's coordinated expenditures, which function like contributions to the candidate, may be restricted to prevent donors from funneling large contributions through a party to a candidate. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 25, 2001 | ||
Shaw v. Reno | Jul 14, 2026 | Jul 14, 2026 | Judgment | Whether a plaintiff may state a cognizable claim under the Equal Protection Clause by alleging that a legislature, though race-neutral on its face, drew district boundaries so bizarrely irregular that they can only be understood as an effort to separate voters into different districts on the basis of race — and whether such a racial gerrymander, even without proof of vote dilution, triggers strict scrutiny as a racial classification. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 28, 1993 | ||
Buckley v. Valeo | Jul 12, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the various provisions of the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) — including limits on contributions, limits on expenditures (both by candidates and independent spenders), disclosure requirements, the public financing of presidential campaigns, and the structure of the FEC — violated the First Amendment's protection of political speech and association, the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of equal protection, and the Appointments Clause of the Constitution. The central question was whether the government's interest in preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption in federal elections could justify restrictions on political spending, and if so, which restrictions. |
| United States of America |
| Jan 30, 1976 | ||
Baker v. Carr | Jul 12, 2026 | Jul 12, 2026 | Judgment | Whether a claim alleging that a state's legislative apportionment scheme violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment — by diluting the voting power of citizens in overpopulated districts — presents a justiciable controversy or is a non-justiciable "political question" that federal courts lack authority to adjudicate. This issue required the Court to revisit and overturn the precedent of Colegrove v. Green, 328 U.S. 549 (1946), which had held that federal courts should not intervene in reapportionment disputes. |
| United States of America |
| Mar 26, 1962 | ||
Cooper v. Harris | Jul 12, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether North Carolina's 2011 congressional redistricting plan used race as the predominant factor in drawing Districts 1 and 12, thereby triggering strict scrutiny — and, if so, whether the State's use of race was narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest (specifically, compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act). A subsidiary issue was whether the legislature's pursuit of partisan advantage could explain the racial composition of the districts, thereby negating the claim that race predominated. |
| United States of America |
| May 22, 2017 | ||
Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee | Jul 10, 2026 | Jul 10, 2026 | Judgment | Whether Arizona's out-of-precinct ballot policy and ballot collection ban (HB 2023) violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and more broadly, what legal standard governs Section 2 challenges to "time, place, or manner" voting rules—specifically, whether the "totality of the circumstances" test from Thornburg v. Gingles and the Senate Factors applies to challenges to facially neutral voting procedures. |
| United States of America |
| Jul 1, 2021 | ||
Shelby County v. Holder | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the coverage formula in Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act — which determined which jurisdictions were subject to the preclearance requirement of Section 5 — remained constitutionally valid after Congress reauthorized it in 2006 without updating the formula, given that the formula was based on decades-old data (voter registration and turnout from the 1960s and early 1970s) and practices (literacy tests) that had since been banned nationwide. More broadly, whether the formula violated the constitutional principle of equal sovereignty among the states by subjecting only certain jurisdictions to the extraordinary federal intrusion of preclearance. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 25, 2013 | ||
Sentencia T-487/03 | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the failure of the Registraduría to provide Braille electoral ballots to visually impaired voters violated their fundamental rights to political participation (Article 40 of the Constitution), equality (Article 13), and human dignity (Article 1) — and whether the provision of Braille ballots is a constitutionally mandated necessary consequence of the state's obligation to promote real and effective equality (igualdad real) for persons with disabilities. |
| Colombia |
| Jun 11, 2003 | ||
Sentencia C-025/21 | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether Article 6 of Law 1996 of 2019, which establishes the presumption of full legal capacity for all persons with disabilities regardless of whether they use supports, is constitutional; whether Article 53 of Law 1996 of 2019, which repealed all provisions related to interdiction and inhabilitation in the Colombian legal system, is constitutional; and whether the shift from a substitute decision-making model (guardianship/interdiction) to a supported decision-making model is consistent with the Colombian Constitution and Colombia's international obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), ratified by Colombia via Act 1346 of 2009. |
| Colombia |
| Feb 4, 2021 | ||
In the Matter of William Pughsley | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the circuit court erred in disqualifying William Pughsley from voting by applying an improper "base level understanding" standard—rather than the statutory standard of whether the individual can communicate, with or without accommodations, a desire to participate in the voting process—and whether the court erred in denying accommodations and the Supported Decision-Making Act petition. |
| United States of America |
| |||
Kasozi & 3 Ors v Attorney General & 2 Ors | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether forcing PWDs to be members of NUDIPU-affiliated associations to vote (as per Regulation 10) violated their constitutional rights, including the freedom of association (Article 29(1)(e)), the right to participate in public affairs (Article 38(1)), the right to redress (Article 50(1)), and the right to vote (Article 59(1)); Whether Parliament unconstitutionally abdicated its mandate under Article 78(4) of the Constitution by delegating the power to create electoral procedures to a Minister instead of prescribing them directly through legislation; and whether the legal framework for PWD elections, particularly after the 2013 legislative amendments, was constitutional. |
| Uganda |
| Sep 29, 2015 | ||
August v Electoral Commission of South Africa | Jul 9, 2026 | Jul 9, 2026 | Judgment | Whether prisoners retained their constitutional right to vote under the 1996 Constitution, and, if so, whether the IEC was obligated to take active steps to facilitate their registration and voting, particularly in the absence of any parliamentary legislation that explicitly disenfranchised them. |
| South Africa |
| Apr 1, 1999 | ||
Emily's List v. FEC | Jul 8, 2026 | Jul 8, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the FEC's regulations requiring non-profit political committees to use federally regulated ("hard money") funds for at least 50% of their administrative, voter drive, and public communications costs—and restricting how such groups may solicit contributions—violate the First Amendment's protection of political speech and association, particularly in light of the Supreme Court's intervening decisions in FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life (2007) and Davis v. FEC (2008). |
| United States of America |
| Sep 18, 2009 | ||
Gomillion v. Lightfoot | Jul 8, 2026 | Jul 8, 2026 | Judgment | Whether a state legislature's redefinition of municipal boundaries—designed to exclude African American voters from a city—violates the Fifteenth Amendment, and whether such a legislative act is subject to federal judicial review despite the legislature's general authority to define municipal boundaries. |
| United States of America |
| Nov 14, 1960 | ||
National Republican Senatorial Committee v. Federal Election Commission | Jul 8, 2026 | Jul 8, 2026 | Judgment | Whether FECA's limits on political parties' coordinated expenditures with candidates violate the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, and specifically whether Colorado II—which upheld those limits under a deferential standard of review—remains good law in light of the Court's subsequent, more demanding campaign finance jurisprudence requiring that restrictions be "necessary," "narrowly tailored," and not "disproportionate" to the government's interest in preventing quid pro quo corruption. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 30, 2026 | ||
Moore v. Harper | Jul 8, 2026 | Jul 8, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the Elections Clause of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, § 4, cl. 1)—which provides that "[t]he Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof"—vests exclusive and independent authority in state legislatures to set the rules for federal elections, insulating them from review by state courts applying state constitutional constraints. |
| United States of America |
| Jun 27, 2023 | ||
Louisiana v. Callais | Jul 8, 2026 | Jul 8, 2026 | Judgment | Whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts. |
| United States of America |
| Apr 29, 2026 | ||
Richter v. Minister of Home Affairs | Jul 7, 2026 | Jul 7, 2026 | Judgment | Whether Section 33(1)(b) and Section 33(1)(e) of the Electoral Act 73 of 1998 — which limited the "special vote" to South African citizens absent from the Republic only if they were on "government service" (or members of the household of such persons), while effectively excluding all other citizens living or working abroad — unjustifiably limited the constitutional right to vote under Section 19(3)(a) of the Constitution, read with the rights to equality (Section 9(1)), human dignity (Section 10), and equal citizenship (Section 3(2)(a)). |
| South Africa |
| Feb 9, 2009 | ||
Brotherton N.O. v. Electoral Commission of Zambia | Jul 7, 2026 | Jul 7, 2026 | Judgment | Did the Electoral Commission of Zambia violate the fundamental voting rights of disabled voters by failing to provide adequate facilites? |
| Zambia |
| Sep 18, 2011 | ||
San Antonio Acha v. García Vélez | Jul 7, 2026 | Aug 21, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the Puerto Rico State Elections Commission (CEE) violated the due process rights of voters with mobility impairments by denying their early voting applications (voto adelantado) based on alleged deficiencies in their forms — including missing signatures, incomplete information, and suspected fraud (e.g., dozens of applications certified by the same physician on the same date) — while simultaneously failing to provide timely notice of those denials, thereby depriving the voters of any meaningful opportunity to cure the defects before the November 8, 2016 general election. |
| Puerto Rico |
| Nov 4, 2016 | ||
Merrill v. People First of Alabama | Jul 7, 2026 | Jul 7, 2026 | Judgment | Whether the Alabama Secretary of State’s prohibition on curbside voting violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the First and Fourteenth Amendments by denying reasonable accommodations to voters with disabilities during the pandemic. |
| United States of America |
| Oct 21, 2020 |