Abbott v. Perez

Abbott v. Perez

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Feb. 2019

Featured Posts

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

This Week at the Court

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Statistical Snapshot

Live Blog Archives

Twitter Feed

Calendar: February 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

First Mondays see all

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of February 15, 2019

Conference

Holiday

Orders

RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)

Opinions

Conference

Orders

MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)

MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Consolidated with:

Abbott v. Perez

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
17-586	W.D. Tex.	Apr 24, 2018 Tr.Aud.	Jun 25, 2018	5-4	Alito	OT 2017

Holding: The district court disregarded the presumption of legislative good faith and improperly reversed the burden of proof when it required the state to show a lack of discriminatory intent in adopting new districting plans; one of the challenged state house districts is an impermissible racial gerrymander.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Alito on June 25, 2018. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Gorsuch joined. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan joined.

A "view" from the courtroom: Wait, wait … there’s more (Mark Walsh)
Opinion analysis: Texas scores near-complete victory on redistricting (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Redistricting again divides justices (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Texas redistricting battles return to the court (Amy Howe)
Court bulks up this term’s docket (UPDATED) (Amy Howe)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Oct 17 2017	Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due November 20, 2017)
Oct 17 2017	Appendix of Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.
Nov 20 2017	Motion to dismiss or affirm and supplemental appendix filed by appellees Eddie Rodriguez, et al.
Nov 20 2017	Brief amici curiae of States of Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin filed.
Dec 04 2017	Reply of appellants Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.
Dec 20 2017	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/5/2018.
Jan 08 2018	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/12/2018.
Jan 12 2018	Further 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. 17-626 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 2018	Because 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.”
Jan 30 2018	Joint motion for divided argument and enlargement of time for oral argument filed by appellees. VIDED
Jan 31 2018	Joint Blanket Consent filed by appellees, Shannon Perez, et al., and appellees, Mexican American Legislative Caucus, filed. VIDED
Feb 01 2018	Blanket Consent filed by appellants, Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. VIDED
Feb 02 2018	Application (17A825) for leave to file appellants' brief on the merits and the reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limits, submitted to Justice Alito. VIDED
Feb 06 2018	Application (17A825) granted by Justice Alito for leave to file appellants' brief on the merits and the reply brief on the merits in excess of the word limits. VIDED
Feb 23 2018	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 24, 2018. VIDED
Feb 26 2018	Joint appendix filed. VIDED
Feb 26 2018	Brief of appellants Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED.
Feb 26 2018	Brief of appellee United States in support of appellants filed. VIDED.
Mar 05 2018	Brief amici curiae of States of Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Mar 07 2018	CIRCULATED
Mar 23 2018	Motion for divided argument filed by the Solicitor General. VIDED.
Mar 28 2018	Brief of appellees Perez, et al. (State House Districts) filed (No. 17-626). (Distributed)
Mar 28 2018	Brief of appellees Perez, et al. (Congressional Districts) filed (No. 17-586). (Distributed)
Apr 04 2018	Brief amici curiae of Common Cause and The Voting Rights Institute filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 04 2018	Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center; Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law; NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 13 2018	Motion of the Solicitor General for divided argument and the motion of appellees for enlargement of time for oral argument and for divided argument are granted, and the time is divided as follows: 25 minutes for appellants, 10 minutes for the Solicitor General in support of appellants, 15 minutes for appellees in No. 17-586, and 20 minutes for appellees in No. 17-626.
Apr 17 2018	Reply of appellee United States in support of appellants filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 17 2018	Reply of appellants Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
Apr 24 2018	Argued. 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
Jun 25 2018	Judgment REVERSED, and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, Thomas, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Sotomayor, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kagan, JJ., joined. VIDED. (No. 17-626, Judgment REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, and case REMANDED).
Jul 27 2018	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the February 15 conference on Tuesday; the justices added County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund to next term's merits docket and summarily reversed in Moore v. Texas.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Mission Product Holdings Inc. v. Tempnology, LLC.
On Friday, the justices will meet for their February 22 conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- Moore v. Texas The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ redetermination that Bobby James Moore does not have an intellectual disability and is thus eligible for the death penalty is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's 2017 decision in Moore v. Texas.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Baxter v. United States (1) Whether a conviction for robbery under Florida law qualifies as a “violent felony” within the Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause simply because it requires overcoming victim resistance, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit has held, or whether such a conviction fails to qualify as an ACCA “violent felony” because Florida caselaw confirms that overcoming victim resistance does not invariably requires the use of “violent force” as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has held; and (2) whether a conviction for any state robbery offense that includes “as an element” the common law requirement of overcoming “victim resistance” is categorically a “violent felony” within the ACCA’s elements clause if the offense has been specifically interpreted by state appellate courts to require only slight force to overcome resistance.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 45

Cases decided 13

Summary reversals 3

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
First Mondays see all
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor at the Library of Congress

On February 14, Justice Sonia Sotomayor appeared at the Library of Congress with Chief Judge Robert Katzmann of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit and Professor Eloise Pasachoff of the Georgetown University Law Center for the Supreme Court Fellows Annual Lecture.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

15
Conference

19
Orders
RETURN MAIL INC. V. U.S. POSTAL SERVICE (17-1594)

20
MISSION PRODUCT HOLDINGS INC. V. TEMPNOLOGY INC. (17-1657)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
MANHATTAN COMMUNITY ACCESS CORP. V. HALLECK (17-1702)

26
UNITED STATES V. HAYMOND (17-1672)
MONT V. UNITED STATES (17-8995)

27
THE AMERICAN LEGION V. AMERICAN HUMANIST ASSOCIATION (17-1717)

Cases argued	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74