But your right to claim under Section 75 applies only to Mastercard or Visa and other credit cards.
In addition to claims of vote dilution, courts have considered vote denial claims brought under Section 2. The Supreme Court, in Richardson v. Ramirez (1974), held that felony disenfranchisement laws cannot violate Section 2 because, among other reasons, Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment permits such laws.
The government claims that under Section 215 it may seize all of our phone call information now because it might conceivably be relevant to an investigation at some later date, even if there is no particular reason to believe that any but a tiny fraction of the data collected might possibly be suspicious.
Claims brought under Section 2 have also predominately concerned vote dilution.
Following pointed questioning by Sen. Wyden, he claimed that "Under Section 215, NSA is not receiving cell site location data and has no current plans to do so".
The Supreme Court has not addressed whether such claims are cognizable under Section 2, and lower courts have reached different conclusions on the issue.
As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiffs bring this action and assert claims for relief under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, the New York City Human Rights Law, and for negligent supervision.
The basis for appellants claim for relief under section 102.168 is that there is a "no-vote" problem, i. e., ballots which, although counted by machines at least once, allegedly have not been counted in the presidential election.
On Friday, more than 1,000 doctors wrote a letter to the Daily Telegraph claiming the rules, under section 75 of the act, would "force virtually every part of the English NHS to be opened up to the private sector to bid for its contracts".
