Abbott v. Perez

Consolidated with:

Docket No.
Op. Below
Apr 24, 2018

Issues: (1) Whether the district court issued an appealable interlocutory injunction when it invalidated Texas’ duly enacted redistricting plan and ordered the parties to appear at a remedial hearing to redraw Texas House of Representatives districts unless the governor called a special legislative session to redraw the Texas House map within three business days; (2) whether the Texas legislature acted with an unlawful purpose when it enacted Texas House of Representatives districts originally imposed by the district court to remedy any potential constitutional and statutory defects in a prior legislative plan that was repealed without ever having taken effect; (3) whether any of the invalidated districts that were unchanged from the 2012 court-imposed remedial plan to the 2013 legislatively adopted plan (in Bell, Dallas and Nueces Counties) are unlawful, when the district court in 2012 issued an opinion explaining why these districts were lawful; and (4) whether the Texas Legislature had a strong basis in evidence to believe that consideration of race to maintain a Hispanic voter-registration majority was necessary in House District 90 in Tarrant County, when one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit told the legislature it had to keep the district’s population above 50 percent Spanish-surnamed-voter registration to avoid diluting Hispanic voting strength.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

DateProceedings and Orders
Oct 27 2017Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due November 29, 2017)
Oct 27 2017Appendix of Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.
Nov 29 2017Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Mexican American Legislative Caucus, et al.
Nov 29 2017Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force.
Nov 29 2017Brief amici curiae of Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin filed.
Dec 13 2017Reply of appellants Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.
Dec 20 2017DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.
Jan 08 2018DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.
Jan 12 2018Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction in No. 17-586 is postponed to the hearing of the case on the merits. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.
Jan 12 2018Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 17-586. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 17-586. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the flings is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
Feb 23 2018SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 24, 2018. VIDED
Apr 24 2018Argued. For appellants: Scott A. Keller, Solicitor General of Texas, Austin, Tex. For appellee United States in support of appellants: Edwin S. Kneedler, Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For appellees in 17-586: Max Renea Hicks, Austin, Tex. For appellees in 17-626: Allison J. Riggs, Durham, N. C. VIDED