{"id":53938,"date":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","date_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/content.findlaw-admin.com\/ability-legal\/supreme\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-court-considers-a-powerful-challenge-to-the-voting-rights-act.html"},"modified":"2016-09-30T11:27:00","modified_gmt":"2016-09-30T16:27:00","slug":"the-supreme-court-considers-a-powerful-challenge-to-the-voting-rights-act","status":"publish","type":"supreme","link":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-commentary\/the-supreme-court-considers-a-powerful-challenge-to-the-voting-rights-act.html","title":{"rendered":"The Supreme Court Considers a Powerful Challenge to the Voting Rights Act"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<div class=\"wp-container-core-columns-is-layout-8f761849  fl-block-columns fl-sectionWithSidebar fl-container fl-flex fl-flex-wrap fl-gap30\">\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-page-articles   fl-block-column fl-section-main fl-section-main-full-width\">\n        <div id=\"writ\">\n      <!-- Right Line of Links Section -->\n      <!-- BEGIN PICTURE INSERTION -->\n      <!-- BEGIN TITLE AND AUTHOR INSERTION -->\n      <table>\n        <tr>\n\n          <td width=\"100\" rowspan=\"3\" class=\"wauthor\"><a href=\"#bio\"><img decoding=\"async\" src=\"https://supreme.findlaw.com/static/f/images\/writ\/rodger.citron.jpg\" border=\"0\" alt=\"Rodger Citron\"><\/a><\/td>\n\n          <td class=\"wititle\"><h1>The Supreme Court Considers a Powerful Challenge to the Voting Rights Act <\/h1><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"wauthor\"><a href=\"#bio\" class=\"graybold\"><h2>By RODGER CITRON <\/h2><br>\n          <\/a><\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n        <tr>\n          <td class=\"widate\">Wednesday, April 29, 2009<\/td>\n        <\/tr>\n      <\/table>\n\n<p>Today, the Supreme Court hears oral  argument in <em>Northwest Austin Municipal  Utility District Number One v. Holder<\/em> (&#8220;<em>NAMUDNO<\/em>&#8220;),  arguably the Court&#8217;s most important \u2013 and perhaps most difficult \u2013 case of the  term. <em>NAMUDNO <\/em>involves a powerful challenge to Section 5 of the Voting  Rights Act (&#8220;the Act&#8221;) and implicates fundamental constitutional principles,  pitting the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments&#8217; protections of civil rights  against the value of state sovereignty.  Paradoxically, the very success of the Act in combating racial  discrimination in voting has enabled such a strong challenge to one of its  basic provisions. <\/p>\n\n<p>(Apparently recognizing the  significance of and public interest in <em>NAMUDNO<\/em>,  the Court will provide same-day access to audio of the oral argument, something  it hasn&#8217;t done since the oral argument more than a year ago in <em>District of Columbia v. Heller<\/em>,  involving the Second Amendment right to bear arms.)<\/p>\n<p>In this article, I will briefly  describe the legislative history of the Voting Rights Act, discuss the  challenge to Section 5 asserted by the plaintiff in <em>NAMUDNO<\/em> and the lower court&#8217;s rejection of that challenge, and  offer a prediction about the outcome of the case before the Supreme Court. Among legal commentators, the conventional  wisdom is that Justice Anthony Kennedy&#8217;s vote will be decisive; I agree. As I will explain below, my view is that  Justice Kennedy will vote to uphold the constitutionality of Section 5. <\/p>\n<div id=\"writthreetwenty\">\n  <script language=\"JavaScript\" type=\"text\/javascript\">dart_call(\"300x250\", \"ptile=2\", 0); <\/script>\n<\/div>\n\n<p><strong>The Voting Rights Act  of 1965 and Its Subsequent Reauthorizations<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> The history  of the Voting Rights Act dates back to the period shortly after the Civil War,  when the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments were adopted. The Fifteenth Amendment specifically  guarantees that the &#8220;right of citizens to vote shall not be denied or abridged  by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous  condition of servitude.&#8221; Despite this  guarantee, however, African Americans encountered substantial obstacles to  voting \u2013 including literacy tests, property qualifications, and other  impediments intended to thwart their right to vote \u2013 for nearly a century after  the ratification of the amendment in 1870.<\/p>\n<p> Eventually,  in 1965, Congress responded with comprehensive legislation that generally  prohibited voting discrimination.  Congress also \u2013 in temporary legislation that has been reauthorized  several times and continues to be the law today \u2013 subjected certain states and  other governmental entities with particularly egregious histories of voting  discrimination to additional scrutiny and regulation. Under Section 5 of the Act, such &#8220;covered&#8221;  jurisdictions may not make any change in their voting regulations unless the  proposed change is reviewed and approved (a process known as &#8220;preclearance&#8221;) by  the federal government. The Act also  contains what is known as a &#8220;bailout&#8221; provision that allows for a covered  jurisdiction to file a lawsuit if it seeks to no longer be covered; the  jurisdiction will succeed if (in essence) it can show that it does not engage  in voting discrimination. <\/p>\n<p> The  temporary legislation subjecting covered jurisdictions to preclearance  requirements (while maintaining the bailout procedure) was reauthorized, with  certain changes, in 1970, 1975, 1982, and 2006.  Prior to each reauthorization, Congress conducted hearings and received  extensive evidence on the continued existence of voting discrimination. <\/p>\n<p> Shortly  after Congress reauthorized Section 5 (and a number of other temporary  provisions) of the Act in 2006, the plaintiff in <em>NAMUDNO<\/em> filed suit. The  plaintiff \u2013 a local government entity in Texas, a covered jurisdiction under  the Act \u2013 sought to be exempted from the preclearance requirements of Section  5. It also contended that Section 5 was  unconstitutional because it was an &#8220;overextension&#8221; of Congress&#8217;s power &#8220;to  remedy past violations of the Fifteenth Amendment.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p><strong>The Lower Court&#8217;s  Decision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> The  plaintiff filed its lawsuit in United States District Court in Washington,  D.C. Pursuant to the Act, a three-judge  panel was convened; it included two district court judges, Paul L. Friedman and  Emmet G. Sullivan, and a Court of Appeals judge, David S. Tatel. Judge Tatel, a former civil rights lawyer,  wrote a lengthy decision for a unanimous court rejecting the plaintiff&#8217;s  claims.<\/p>\n<p> As a  threshold matter, the court concluded that the plaintiff was not permitted to  seek bailout under the Act. The court  held that only covered states \u2013 such as Texas, where the plaintiff, a local  utility district, is located \u2013 and political subdivisions covered under the Act  may pursue bailout. <\/p>\n<p> The court  then addressed the plaintiff&#8217;s contention that Section 5 was  unconstitutional. Initially, the court  confronted the issue of the standard of review to be applied in evaluating the  plaintiff&#8217;s challenge. One line of  Supreme Court cases can be traced back to the Supreme Court&#8217;s decision in <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/383\/301.html\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>South Carolina v Katzenbach<\/em><\/a>,  involving a challenge to the Act shortly after it was first adopted. In <em>Katzenbach<\/em>,  the Supreme Court held that under the Fifteenth Amendment, a deferential  &#8220;rational means&#8221; standard of review applied to challenges to the Act. The Act easily passed muster in <em>Katzenbach<\/em> and in a number of subsequent  cases, including a 1999 Supreme Court decision, <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/525\/266.html\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Lopez  v. Monterey County<\/em><\/a>. <\/p>\n<p> The other  line of Supreme Court cases is more recent and begins with <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/521\/507.html\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>City  of Boerne v. Flores<\/em><\/a>; in that case, the Court developed a more  demanding &#8220;congruence and proportionality&#8221; test for evaluating legislation  enacted pursuant to Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The congruence and proportionality standard  entails more judicial scrutiny than &#8220;rational means&#8221; review, and requires more  rigorous judicial review of the remedy chosen by Congress to address the  constitutional harm it identified.  Applying this standard, the Supreme Court has invalidated federal  legislation in a number of cases since <em>City  of Boerne<\/em>. <\/p>\n<p> The  district court in <em>NAMUDNO<\/em> concluded  that the more lenient standard of review applied to the plaintiff&#8217;s challenge  to Section 5 of the Act \u2013 essentially because the Act was specifically  authorized by the Fifteenth Amendment, which protects the right to vote. After reviewing in detail the evidence  presented to Congress, the court concluded that the record before Congress in  2006 contained &#8220;extensive evidence of intentional discrimination&#8221; and supported  Congress&#8217;s belief that Section 5 was beneficial by deterring voting  discrimination. <\/p>\n<p> The court  also analyzed the plaintiff&#8217;s challenge to Section 5 under the congruence and  proportionality standard and concluded that Section 5 was constitutional  despite the more rigorous review required under that test. Although the court rejected the plaintiff&#8217;s  challenge, it nevertheless acknowledged the &#8220;significant progress&#8221; made by  minorities in covered jurisdictions since the prior reauthorization in  1982. <\/p>\n<p>The court issued its decision in  September 2008, before the last presidential election. Critics of Section 5, including the plaintiff  (in its submissions to the Supreme Court) have stated that the election of an  African American president \u2013 along with the infirmities in the 2006 legislation  reauthorizing Section 5 \u2013 demonstrates that there no longer is a need for this  more intrusive provision of the Act. <\/p>\n<p><strong>Justice Kennedy&#8217;s  Likely Decisive Vote \u2013 and a Prediction<\/strong><\/p>\n<p> Under Chief  Justice John Roberts, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Act narrowly in its  decisions so far, as Richard Hasen, a professor at Loyola Law School, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.slate.com\/id\/2216888\/\" rel=\"noopener\">noted  this week in Slate<\/a>. Based  upon the Court&#8217;s decision in those cases and others involving the operation of  the political process, it appears that at least four members of the Court \u2013  Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel  Alito \u2013 are sufficiently skeptical of the Act to review critically the record  before Congress in 2006, and to subject Section 5 to rigorous congruence and  proportionality review. The progress  made under the Act likely will demonstrate for this group that Section 5 is  outdated and no longer may be necessary. <\/p>\n<p> Just as there are four conservative justices  who are likely to take a dim view of section, it seems that the four members of  the so-called liberal wing of the Court \u2013 Justices John Paul Stevens, David  Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer \u2013 are likely to find that  Congress did its work well enough to justify their rejecting the plaintiff&#8217;s  challenge. The evidence cited by the  lower court, together with the institutional deference due Congress on  legislation intended to remedy racial discrimination, should be enough to  sustain Section 5 in this group&#8217;s eyes. <\/p>\n<p> As is often  the case, Justice Kennedy&#8217;s vote is likely to be decisive. And there are at least two reasons to believe  that he is more likely to vote to sustain Section 5 rather than to invalidate  it as unconstitutional. First, in a  decision earlier this year involving a claim brought under another section of  the Voting Rights Act, <a href=\"https:\/\/caselaw.findlaw.com\/court\/us-supreme-court\/556\/1.html\" rel=\"noopener\"><em>Bartlett  v. Strickland<\/em><\/a>, Justice Kennedy wrote that: <\/p>\n<p>Some commentators suggest that  racially polarized voting is waning \u2013 as evidenced by, for example, the  election of minority candidates where a majority of voters are white. Still racial discrimination and racially polarized  voting are not ancient history. Much  remains to be done to ensure that citizens of all races have equal opportunity  to share and participate in our democratic processes and traditions; and  section 2 [of the Act] must be interpreted to ensure that continued progress.<\/p>\n<p>That is hardly the statement of a justice prepared to  invalidate a significant \u2013 albeit different \u2013 provision of the Act. <\/p>\n<p>Second, invalidating Section 5  would be politically controversial, and could be interpreted as a repudiation  of the historical struggle for civil rights that culminated in (among other  things) the Voting Rights Act of 1965.  Among the Justices, Kennedy seems particularly attuned to the political  consequences of the Court&#8217;s decisions, and he would seem inclined to avoid the  controversy attendant to a decision that would strike down Section 5 as  unconstitutional. <\/p>\n<p> Although  Justice Kennedy seems unlikely to vote to invalidate Section 5, it is worth  recalling that his decision in <em>Bartlett<\/em> narrowed the application of the Act and noting that he almost certainly is  sympathetic to the plaintiff&#8217;s claims in <em>NAMUDNO<\/em>. The challenge for Kennedy, as Professor Hasen  suggested, will be to narrow the reach of Section 5. However, that objective is  likely to be elusive in a case in which the principal legal issue is a facial  challenge to the law \u2013 that is, a challenge to the law under essentially any  and all circumstances rather than one based upon an application of the law to a  particular set of facts. <\/p>\n<p><br>\n  <!-- BEGIN AUTHORS FOOTNOTE -->\n<\/p>\n<hr size=\"1\">\n<p><a name=\"bio\" id=\"bio\"><\/a><em>Rodger Citron is an  Assistant Professor of Law at Touro Law Center on Long Island<\/em><em>I and a FindLaw guest columnist.<\/em><em>. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n <\/div>\n<div class=\"was-this-helpful\">\n    <div\n            class=\"was-this-helpful__question-container\"\n            aria-labelledby=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n            role=\"group\"\n    >\n        <span\n                id=\"was-this-helpful__question\"\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__question fl-text-lg-bold\"\n        >Was this helpful?<\/span>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"Yes\"\n                value=\"yes\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">Yes<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-up\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3418)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M6 21H3C2.46957 21 1.96086 20.7893 1.58579 20.4142C1.21071 20.0391 1 19.5304 1 19V12C1 11.4696 1.21071 10.9609 1.58579 10.5858C1.96086 10.2107 2.46957 10 3 10H6M13 8V4C13 3.20435 12.6839 2.44129 12.1213 1.87868C11.5587 1.31607 10.7956 1 10 1L6 10V21H17.28C17.7623 21.0055 18.2304 20.8364 18.5979 20.524C18.9654 20.2116 19.2077 19.7769 19.28 19.3L20.66 10.3C20.7035 10.0134 20.6842 9.72068 20.6033 9.44225C20.5225 9.16382 20.3821 8.90629 20.1919 8.68751C20.0016 8.46873 19.7661 8.29393 19.5016 8.17522C19.2371 8.0565 18.9499 7.99672 18.66 8H13Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\"\n                              stroke-linejoin=\"round\"><\/path>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3418\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"><\/rect>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n        <button\n                class=\"was-this-helpful__button fl-text-sm\"\n                aria-label=\"No\"\n                value=\"no\"\n        >\n            <span class=\"was-this-helpful__button-text fl-text-bold\">No<\/span>\n            <i class=\"was-this-helpful__button-icon\">\n                <svg width=\"22\" height=\"22\" viewBox=\"0 0 22 22\" fill=\"none\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\">\n                    <g id=\"thumbs-down\" clip-path=\"url(#clip0_604_3423)\">\n                        <path id=\"Vector\"\n                              d=\"M16 0.999995H18.67C19.236 0.989986 19.7859 1.18813 20.2154 1.55681C20.645 1.9255 20.9242 2.43905 21 3V10C20.9242 10.5609 20.645 11.0745 20.2154 11.4432C19.7859 11.8119 19.236 12.01 18.67 12H16M9.00003 14V18C9.00003 18.7956 9.3161 19.5587 9.87871 20.1213C10.4413 20.6839 11.2044 21 12 21L16 12V0.999995H4.72003C4.2377 0.994543 3.76965 1.16359 3.40212 1.47599C3.0346 1.78839 2.79235 2.22309 2.72003 2.7L1.34003 11.7C1.29652 11.9866 1.31586 12.2793 1.39669 12.5577C1.47753 12.8362 1.61793 13.0937 1.80817 13.3125C1.99842 13.5313 2.23395 13.7061 2.49846 13.8248C2.76297 13.9435 3.05012 14.0033 3.34003 14H9.00003Z\"\n                              stroke=\"#666666\" stroke-width=\"2\" stroke-linecap=\"round\" stroke-linejoin=\"round\"\/>\n                    <\/g>\n                    <defs>\n                        <clipPath id=\"clip0_604_3423\">\n                            <rect width=\"22\" height=\"22\" fill=\"white\"\/>\n                        <\/clipPath>\n                    <\/defs>\n                <\/svg>\n            <\/i>\n        <\/button>\n    <\/div>\n    <span class=\"was-this-helpful__taken-action fl-text-sm-bold\"><\/span>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-container\">\n        <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n            <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n        <\/div>\n        <form class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form\">\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--positive\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Easy to understand\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--understandable\"\n                        >Easy to understand<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Solved my problem\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--solved-problem\"\n                        >Solved my problem<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"positive-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback was-this-helpful__feedback--negative\">\n                <fieldset>\n                    <legend class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\" tabindex=\"0\">Why was this not helpful?<\/legend>\n                    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message\" role=\"status\">\n                        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__choose-option-message-text\"><\/p>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Missing Information\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--missing-info\"\n                        >Missing the information I need<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Too complicated\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--complicated\"\n                        >Too complicated \/ too many steps<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Out of date\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--dated\"\n                        >Out of date<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                    <div class=\"fl-radio-button-field fl-flex was-this-helpful__feedback-form-title\">\n                        <input\n                                id=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-input\"\n                                type=\"radio\"\n                                name=\"negative-feedback\"\n                                value=\"Other\"\n                        >\n                        <label\n                                class=\"fl-radio-button-field-label fl-text-sm was-this-helpful__radio-label\"\n                                for=\"was-this-helpful__radio-button--negative-other\"\n                        >Other<\/label>\n                    <\/div>\n                <\/fieldset>\n            <\/div>\n            <div class=\"was-this-helpful__form-buttons-container\">\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--positive at-feedback-submit fl-button secondary\"\n                    type=\"submit\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Submit<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-angle-right medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n                <button\n                    class=\"was-this-helpful__feedback-button was-this-helpful__feedback-button--cancel fl-button primary disabled\"\n                    type=\"reset\"\n                >\n                    <span class=\"fl-button-content\">Cancel<\/span>\n                    <i\n                        class=\"fa fa-times-circle medium\"\n                        aria-hidden=\"true\"\n                    ><\/i>\n                <\/button>\n            <\/div>\n        <\/form>\n    <\/div>\n    <div class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message\" role=\"status\">\n        <i class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-icon fa fa-check\"><\/i>\n        <p class=\"was-this-helpful__thank-you-message-text\" aria-live=\"polite\"><\/p>\n    <\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n\n    <\/div>\n    \n    <div class=\"fl-block-column fl-section-sidebar\">\n        \n    <\/div>\n<\/div>","protected":false},"parent":49876,"menu_order":0,"template":"app\/Http\/Controllers\/Templates\/ArticlePageController.php","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_stopmodifiedupdate":false,"_modified_date":"","_cloudinary_featured_overwrite":false},"class_list":["post-53938","supreme","type-supreme","status-publish","hentry"],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/53938","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/supreme"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/supreme\/49876"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/supreme.findlaw.com\/legal-api\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=53938"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}