|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Apr 24, 2018
||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 in part and affirmed in part 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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Oct 27 2017||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due November 29, 2017)|
|Oct 27 2017||Appendix of Greg Abbott, Governor of Texas, et al. filed.|
|Nov 29 2017||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Mexican American Legislative Caucus, et al.|
|Nov 29 2017||Brief amici curiae of Louisiana, Alabama, Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin filed.|
|Nov 29 2017||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force.|
|Dec 13 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. 17-586 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 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.”|
|Feb 23 2018||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, April 24, 2018. VIDED|
|Mar 07 2018||CIRCULATED|
|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||Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART, 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. 17-586, Judgment REVERSED, and case REMANDED).|
|Jul 27 2018||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
The Mar-a-Lago case arrives at the Supreme Court. Here's an explainer on today's filing from @katieleebarlow, who notes that this isn't the first time Trump has asked the justices to intervene in fights over sensitive documents. (Both other times, the court ruled against him.)
In today's Voting Rights Act case, the conservative majority seemed likely to side with Alabama, though perhaps on narrower grounds than the state asked for. Here's @AHoweBlogger's analysis, plus courtroom sketches from Bill Hennessy (AKA @Artisbest).
Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama’s redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge - SCOTUSblog
In February, a divided Supreme Court temporarily blocked a ruling by a three-judge district court in Alabama, which ...
BREAKING: Donald Trump's lawyers have filed an emergency request asking the Supreme Court to intervene in the case over classified documents at Mar-a-Lago. Trump wants SCOTUS to vacate a Sept. 21 ruling by the 11th Circuit. Here is the filing: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/22A283.pdf
Today at SCOTUS: voting rights and veterans' benefits.
First up is Merrill v. Milligan, a case about Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and how to decide if a state's redistricting plan dilutes Black voting power. @AHoweBlogger explains:
When are majority-Black voting districts required? In Alabama case, the justices will review that question. - SCOTUSblog
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right ...
Our first TikTok of the new term. @katieleebarlow breaks down opening day.