He concludes, therefore, that all the "challenged statutes" are unconstitutional.
Judge Treu applied only the first part, asking if the challenged statutes did real and appreciable harm (for a further discussion of these legal issues, see the discussion below, in response to the next question).
As long as defenders can assert some "rational basis" for a challenged statute, the courts will not interfere.
One of the considerations was that the challenged statute was narrowly tailored.
The Supreme Court asserted that plaintiffs must establish not only that a private party "acted under color of the challenged statute, but also that its actions are properly attributable to the State.
In Agostini v. Felton (1997), the entanglement prong of the Lemon test was demoted to simply being a factor in determining the effect of the challenged statute or practice.
Thus, in what comes as close to a smoking gun as we are likely to see in modern times, the State's very justification for a challenged statute hinges explicitly on race -- specifically its concern that African Americans, who had overwhelmingly voted for Democrats, had too much access to the franchise.
In Daniel, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals held that by assigning a "preferential position for the Biblical version of creation" over "any account of the development of man based on scientific research and reasoning," the challenged statute officially promoted religion, in violation of the Establishment Clause.
Thomas first disposed of the standing argument by the state, noting that Aguilar was not challenging the statute as applied, but was arguing that the statute was facially unconstitutional since it did not provide for any person to legally bear arms.
Poe raised a variety of grounds for challenging the statute and eventually landed in the Supreme Court.
