Rivera v. Schwab, 508 P.3d 1289 (Kan. 2022). · Go Syfert
Rivera v. Schwab, 508 P.3d 1289 (Kan. 2022). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
“any line drawing, even one that violates equal protection guarantees, does not infringe on a stand-alone right to vote, the right to free speech, or the right to peaceful assembly.”
32 citation events (32 in the last 25 years) across 7 distinct courts.
Treatment trajectory · 2022 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2022 2024 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 10 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (verbatim quote) League of Women Voters of South Carolina v. Thomas Alexander (2×) also: Cited as authority (rule)
S.C. · 2025 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
any line drawing, even one that violates equal protection guarantees, does not infringe on a stand-alone right to vote, the right to free speech, or the right to peaceful assembly.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Tiger (ID 105962) v. Cline
D. Kan. · 2023 · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence low
we are bound to follow united states supreme court precedent on questions of federal law.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Gary Wygant v. Bill Lee, Governor
Tenn. · 2025 · confidence medium
Ct., Room 5, 185 N.E.2d 18, 19 (Ind. 1962); Rivera v. Schwab, 512 P.3d 168, 173, 177 (Kan. 2022); Wattson v. Simon, 970 N.W.2d 42 , 44–45 (Minn. 2022); Mauldin v. Branch, 866 So. 2d 429 , 430 n.2 (Miss. 2003); Pick v. Nelson, 528 N.W.2d 309, 313 (Neb. 1995); Grisham v. Van Soelen, 539 P.3d 272, 276 (N.M. 2023); League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Ohio Redistricting Comm’n, 195 N.E.3d 974, 978 (Ohio 2022); State ex rel.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) State v. Hall
Kan. Ct. App. · 2025 · confidence medium
The Rivera court explained: 31 "Kansas courts shall be guided by United States Supreme Court precedent interpreting and applying the equal protection guarantees of the Fourteenth Amendment of the federal Constitution when we are called upon to interpret and apply the coextensive equal protection guarantees of section 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights." Rivera, 315 Kan. at 894.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Miles Brown & a. v. Secretary of State
N.H. · 2023 · confidence medium
“Essentially, the Rucho Court struggled to know whether there can ever be ‘too much’ of a legitimate legislative purpose in the process of state law- making.” Rivera v. Schwab, 512 P.3d 168, 183 (Kan. 2022).
discussed Cited "see" State v. Allen (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rivera v. Schwab, 315 Kan. 877, 894 , 512 P.3d 168 (2022).
discussed Cited "see" Hodes & Nauser, MDs v. Stanek (2×)
Kan. · 2024 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rivera v. Schwab, 315 Kan. 877, 907 , 512 P.3d 168 (2022) (criticizing the district court for "crafting its own set of 'five non-exclusive factors'" that were "unmoored from precedent").
cited Cited "see" Grisham v. Van Soelen
N.M. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rivera v. Schwab, 512 P.3d 168 , 185 (Kan. 2022); Harper v. Hall, 886 S.E.2d 393 , 399 (N.C. 2023).
cited Cited "see" Grisham v. Van Soelen
N.M. · 2023 · signal: see · confidence high
See Rivera v. Schwab, 512 P.3d 168, 185 (Kan. 2022); Harper v. Hall, 886 S.E.2d 393 , 399 (N.C. 2023).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." In re K.H. (2×)
Kan. Ct. App. · 2022 · signal: see also · confidence low
Const. Bill of Rights, § 2; see also Rivera v. Schwab, 315 Kan. 877 , Syl. ¶ 4, 512 P.3d 168 (2022) (Section 2 of the Kansas Constitution Bill of Rights and the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause provide the same protection.).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Rivera
v.
Schwab
125092.
Supreme Court of Kansas.
May 18, 2022.
508 P.3d 1289
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 68%
Citer courts: D. Kansas (1)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF KANSAS

No. 125,092

FAITH RIVERA et al., TOM ALONZO et al., and SUSAN FRICK et al., Appellees, v. SCOTT SCHWAB, Kansas Secretary of State, in His Official Capacity, and MICHAEL ABBOTT, Wyandotte County Election Commissioner, in His Official Capacity, Appellants, and JAMIE SHEW, Douglas County Clerk, in His Official Capacity, Appellee.

SYLLABUS BY THE COURT On the record before the court, Substitute for Senate Bill 355 is held not to violate the Kansas Constitution. Appeal from Wyandotte District Court; BILL KLAPPER, judge. Opinion filed May 18, 2022. Reversed and injunction order is lifted. Brant M. Laue, solicitor general, argued the cause, and Kurtis K. Wiard, assistant solicitor general, Shannon Grammel, deputy solicitor general, Dwight R. Carswell, deputy solicitor general, Jeffrey A. Chanay, chief deputy attorney general, Derek Schmidt, attorney general, Anthony F. Rupp, of Foulston Siefkin LLP, of Overland Park, and Gary Ayers and Clayton Kaiser, of the same firm, of Wichita, were with him on the briefs for appellants. Stephen R. McCallister, of Dentons US LLP, of Kansas City, Missouri, argued the cause, and Mark P. Johnson, Betsey L. Lasister, and Curtis E. Woods, pro hac vice, of the same firm, were with him on the briefs for appellees Susan Frick et al.

[*1]

Lalitha D. Madduri, pro hac vice, of Elias Law Group LLP, of Washington, D.C., argued the cause, and Spencer W. Klein, pro hac vice, Joseph N. Posimato, pro hac vice, of the same firm, Abha Khanna, pro hac vice, and Jonathan P. Hawley, pro hac vice, of the same firm, of Seattle, Washington, and Barry R. Grissom and Jake Miller, pro hac vice, of Grissom Miller Law Firm LLC, of Kansas City, Missouri, were with her on the brief for appellees Faith Rivera et al. Sharon Brett, Josh Pierson, and Kayla DeLoach, of American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Kansas, of Overland Park, and Mark P. Gaber, pro hac vice, Richard Samuel Horan, pro hac vice, and Orion de Nevers, pro hac vice, of Campaign Legal Center, of Washington, D.C., Elisabeth S. Theodore, R. Stanton Jones and John A. Freedman, of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, of Washington, D.C., and Rick Rehorn, of Tomasic & Rehorn, of Kansas City, were on the briefs for appellees Tom Alonzo et al. No appearance by Jamie Shew, appellee. The opinion of the court was delivered by STEGALL, J.: A majority of the court holds that, on the record before us, plaintiffs have not prevailed on their claims that Substitute for Senate Bill 355 violates the Kansas Constitution. Therefore, the judgment of the district court is reversed and the permanent injunction ordered by the district court is lifted. A full opinion describing the facts, rationale, and holdings of the court is forthcoming, along with all dissenting or concurring opinions of members of the court.

[*2]