| Line 322: |
Line 322: |
| | *Hurley, Lawrence (June 25, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering-texas/u-s-top-court-mostly-backs-texas-republicans-over-electoral-maps-idUSKBN1JL1QN Supreme court largely backs Texas Republicans over electoral maps]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved June 25, 2018. | | *Hurley, Lawrence (June 25, 2018). [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-gerrymandering-texas/u-s-top-court-mostly-backs-texas-republicans-over-electoral-maps-idUSKBN1JL1QN Supreme court largely backs Texas Republicans over electoral maps]. ''Reuters''. Retrieved June 25, 2018. |
| | *Wheeler, Lydia (June 25, 2018). [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393940-supreme-court-rules-for-texas-in-redistricting-case Supreme Court rules for Texas in redistricting case]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 25, 2018. | | *Wheeler, Lydia (June 25, 2018). [https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393940-supreme-court-rules-for-texas-in-redistricting-case Supreme Court rules for Texas in redistricting case]. ''The Hill''. Retrieved June 25, 2018. |
| − | *Wolf, Richard (June 25, 2018). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/25/divided-supreme-court-says-most-texas-districts-not-racially-drawn/730378002/ Supreme Court upholds most Texas election districts over charges of racial discrimination]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved June 25, 2018.</ref> The Court also protected private property rights by ruling against the Fish and Wildlife Service's efforts to confiscate land by declaring it "critical habitat" for a frog that did not even live there, though it also sent the case back to the lower court.<ref>Multiple references: | + | *Wolf, Richard (June 25, 2018). [https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/06/25/divided-supreme-court-says-most-texas-districts-not-racially-drawn/730378002/ Supreme Court upholds most Texas election districts over charges of racial discrimination]. ''USA Today''. Retrieved June 25, 2018.</ref> The Court also protected private property rights by ruling that the Fish and Wildlife Service overreached in its efforts to confiscate land by declaring it "critical habitat" for a frog that did not even live there, though the Court also sent the case back to the lower court to clarify some additional questions.<ref>Multiple references: |
| | *Warren, Steve (November 27, 2018). [https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/november/us-supreme-court-upholds-landowners-property-rights-against-govt-overreach US Supreme Court Upholds Landowners Property Rights Against Gov't Overreach]. ''CBN News''. Retrieved January 5, 2019. | | *Warren, Steve (November 27, 2018). [https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/november/us-supreme-court-upholds-landowners-property-rights-against-govt-overreach US Supreme Court Upholds Landowners Property Rights Against Gov't Overreach]. ''CBN News''. Retrieved January 5, 2019. |
| | *Moran, Rick (November 28, 2018). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/big_property_rights_victory_at_the_supreme_court.html Big property rights victory at the Supreme Court]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved January 5, 2019. | | *Moran, Rick (November 28, 2018). [https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2018/11/big_property_rights_victory_at_the_supreme_court.html Big property rights victory at the Supreme Court]. ''American Thinker''. Retrieved January 5, 2019. |