English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

The Roberts Court has issued several important voting rights decisions in the past decade that have enabled voting restrictions at the state and local level. This essay examines two of them,  Shelby County v. Holder  (2013) and  Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute  (2018). By juxtaposing the reasoning patterns of the majority opinions in  Shelby County  and  Husted , I explore how the majorities in both cases utilized the flexibility of judicial doctrines as sites of invention. Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion in  Shelby County  combined arguments from circumstance with appeals to  stare decisis , whereas Justice Alito’s opinion in  Husted  relied on a textualist argument. Comparing these approaches illustrates how jurists can flexibly apply judicial philosophies as inventional tools to achieve a desired result in high profile cases. This essay reveals how an understanding of the Supreme Court’s argument invention practices can complement attitudinal and strategic theories of judicial decision-making.

Judicious invention: flexible application of judicial doctrine in the Roberts Court’s voting rights jurisprudence