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

Monks v. New Jersey

• 1969 • 398 U.S. 71 • Burger Court
In the case of Monks v. New Jersey in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited convicted felons from voting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Mr. Monks, argued that his right to vote had been unconstitutionally denied due to his status as a felon and sought relief through reinstatement of his voting rights by challenging New Jersey's disenfranchisement statute. The court ruled against him stating that...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 Burger Court
Term: 1969
Docket: 127
398 U.S. 71
90 S. Ct. 1563
26 L. Ed. 2d 54
1970 U.S. LEXIS 40
Argued: Feb 26, 1970

Monks v. New Jersey

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

Opinion Summary
AI Abstract

In the case of Monks v. New Jersey in 1969, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that prohibited convicted felons from voting violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The plaintiff, Mr. Monks, argued that his right to vote had been unconstitutionally denied due to his status as a felon and sought relief through reinstatement of his voting rights by challenging New Jersey's disenfranchisement statute. The court ruled against him stating that states have broad powers under their police authority to regulate elections and determine voter qualifications including disqualifying individuals who have committed serious crimes from voting. It held that such laws do not violate equal protection because they are based on legitimate state interests in maintaining an orderly society and ensuring integrity within its electoral process. This decision upheld states' rights to establish their own rules regarding voter eligibility while also affirming the constitutionality of felony disenfranchisement statutes which continue today with varying degrees across different states.

Dissent Summary
AI Abstract

The dissenting opinion in the case of Monks v. New Jersey, 1969 is not available or does not exist in public records. The Supreme Court often includes both majority and dissenting opinions, but it's possible that this particular case did not have a recorded dissenting opinion.

Opinion written by Justice
Decided: May 25, 1970
PDF viewer is not available.
Oral Transcript
Argued: Oct 05, 2026
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