2 U.S.C. § 6
Reduction of representation
Should any State deny or abridge the right of any of the male inhabitants thereof, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, to vote at any election named in the amendment to the Constitution, article 14, section 2, except for participation in the rebellion or other crime, the number of Representatives apportioned to such State shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall have to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1965–2024 · leading case: Gordon v. Miller, 828 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2011).
Gordon v. Miller, 828 F. Supp. 2d 13 (D.D.C. 2011). “Section 2’s language is incorporated nearly verbatim into 2 U.S.C. § 6 . See 2 U.S.C. § 6 (2006); see generally George David Zuckerman, A Consideration of the History and Present Status of Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment, 30 Fordham L.”
Lampkin v. Connor, 239 F. Supp. 757 (D.D.C. 1965). “3 Plaintiffs’ complaint asserts that section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution; the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and due process clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution; 2 U.S.C. § 6 (1958); 2 U.S.C. § 2a (1958); 13 U.”
Daisy E. Lampkin v. John T. Connor, Sec'y of Com., 360 F.2d 505 (D.C. Cir. 1966). “2 U.S.C. § 6 declares that the number of representatives apportioned shall be reduced in accordance with Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Citizens for Constitutional Integrity v. Census Bureau, 115 F.4th 618 (D.C. Cir. 2024). “28–29 (1872) (codified at 2 U.S.C. § 6 ). While the Fifteenth Amendment invalidated de jure disenfranchisement based on race, states remained able through the Civil Rights Era to exercise de facto disenfranchisement and “eas[ily] .”
Gordon v. Biden, 606 F. Supp. 2d 11 (D.D.C. 2009). “His alleged injury-in-fact is the diminishment of the votes of electors and registered voters “by including the full slate of Presidential Electors in the electoral count of January 6th, 2009 from states subject to 2USC § 6 [sic],” ¶ 15, and “by the denial and/or abridgement of…”
Gordon v. Nat'l Archives & Records Admin., 258 F. Supp. 3d 23 (D.D.C. 2017). “Specifically, he claims that there are eleven unbounded states, 2 and pursuant to 2 U.S.C. § 6 , electors in those states must be apportioned to the presidential candidates based on the percentage of the popular vote they received.”
Gordon v. Cheney (D.D.C. 2009). “His alleged injury-in-fact is the diminishment of the votes of electors and registered voters “by including the full slate of Presidential Electors in the electoral count of January 6th, 2009 from states subject to 2USC§6 [sic],” ¶ 15, and “by the denial and/or abridgement of…”
Applicability of the Cargo Preference Act to the Transp. of Alaskan Oil to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (OLC 1983). “8 8 1 -9 0 (1975) (codified at 4 2 U.S.C. §§ 6 2 3 1 -6422). C ongress has repeatedly legislated with resp ect to the fill rate fo r the SPR.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.