Display Mode
Dark
Dark
Light
Light
Theme Cover
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Search History
No search history
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Media
Term
Opinion Writer
Direction
Field

Koenig Et Al. v. Flynn, Secretary Of State, Et Al.

• 1931 • 285 U.S. 375 • Hughes Court
In the 1931 case of Koenig et al. v. Flynn, Secretary of State, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York law that required all voters in primary elections to be registered violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement disenfranchised them and other eligible voters who were not registered but wished to participate in primary elections. However, the court upheld the law stating it did not violate any...Open Case
Score:
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms
1 results found
Become a Sponsor
Support Us
Feedback: We can do better!

Your feedback is extremely important to us and greatly appreciated.
Tell us what went wrong

Copied to clipboard
StarredCase saved
Oh No!
Chief Hughes Court
Term: 1931
Docket: 731
285 U.S. 375
52 S. Ct. 403
76 L. Ed. 805
1932 U.S. LEXIS 441
Argued: Mar 24, 1932

Koenig Et Al. v. Flynn, Secretary Of State, Et Al.

  • Pro
  • Pro
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the 1931 case of Koenig et al. v. Flynn, Secretary of State, et al., the U.S Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a New York law that required all voters in primary elections to be registered violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs argued that this requirement disenfranchised them and other eligible voters who were not registered but wished to participate in primary elections. However, the court upheld the law stating it did not violate any constitutional rights as long as it applied equally to all citizens without discrimination or bias based on race or color under its police power for regulating primaries which are part of election machinery. The court also noted that states have broad powers when it comes to determining their own voting requirements and procedures.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

In the dissenting opinion for Koenig et al. v. Flynn, Secretary of State, et al., Justice Stone argued that the majority's decision to invalidate a New York law was an overreach of judicial power and violated principles of federalism. He contended that it is not within the purview of the Supreme Court to determine whether state laws are wise or unwise but rather if they violate constitutional rights - which in this case he believed they did not. The law in question required corporations to disclose their stockholders' names and addresses; Justice Stone saw no violation here as corporations are creatures of state law and thus subject to its regulations. Furthermore, he emphasized that states have a legitimate interest in regulating corporate activities for public welfare purposes including preventing frauds on creditors and shareholders alike.

Opinion written by Justice CEHughes(2)
Decided: Apr 11, 1932
PDF viewer is not available.
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
AI Assist
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcripts
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Related Cases
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Ask Etalia.ai
Go Pro!orto acess these features and extra content.
Audio of Oral Arguments
Free Trial!
Become a Sponsor

Support Us
Copyright © 2026Etalia.ai All Rights Reserved
  • Blog
  • •
  • Privacy
  • •
  • Terms