|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-1138||M.D. Ala.||Nov 12, 2014||Mar 25, 2015||5-4||Breyer||OT 2014|
Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioners in this case.
Holding: The district court’s analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim as referring to the state “as a whole,” rather than district by district, was legally erroneous; the district court also erred in holding that the Alabama Democratic Conference lacked standing. Moreover, the district court did not properly calculate “predominance” in its alternative holding that race was not the predominant motivating factor in the creation of any of the challenged districts. Finally, the district court’s other alternative holding – that the challenged districts would satisfy strict scrutiny – rests on a misperception of the law: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not require a covered jurisdiction to maintain a particular numerical minority percentage. Instead, it requires the jurisdiction to maintain a minority’s ability to elect a preferred candidate of choice.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Mar 14 2014||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due April 21, 2014)|
|Apr 21 2014||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Alabama, et al.|
|May 5 2014||Reply of appellants Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. filed.|
|May 6 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 22, 2014.|
|May 27 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 29, 2014.|
|Jun 2 2014||PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED limited to Question 1 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction. Probable jurisdiction is noted in No. 13-895 limited to Question 2 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction. The cases are consolidated and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument.|
|Jul 10 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellees.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' briefs on the merits is extended to and including August 13, 2014.|
|Jul 22 2014||The time to file appellees' briefs on the merits is extended to and including October 9, 2014.|
|Aug 5 2014||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for appellants Alabama Democratic Conferenc, et al.|
|Aug 13 2014||Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)|
|Aug 13 2014||Brief of appellants Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. filed.|
|Aug 13 2014||Proposal of appellant to lodge copies of affidavit of Joe L. Reed.|
|Aug 18 2014||Opposition of appellees to appellants' lodging proposal.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amicus curiae of the United States in support of neither party filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in support of neither party filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amici curiae of Professors Ronald Keith Gaddie, et al. in support of neither party filed.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Litigants filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed. VIDED.|
|Aug 20 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Anti-Defamation League filed.|
|Sep 4 2014||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 12, 2014. VIDED|
|Sep 4 2014||Appellants' reply to appellees opposition to appellants' lodging proposal.|
|Sep 8 2014||Record requested for U.S.D.C. for Middle District of Alabama.|
|Sep 9 2014||The Record received from U.S.D.C. for Middle District of Alabama is electronic and located on PACER.|
|Sep 19 2014||CIRCULATED|
|Sep 24 2014||Application (14A335) to file a consolidated appellees' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit, submitted to Justice Thomas. VIDED|
|Oct 9 2014||Brief of appellees Alabama, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 15 2014||Motion for divided argument filed by appellants. VIDED.|
|Oct 15 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and for divided argument filed. VIDED.|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives and President Pro Tempore of the Alabama Senate filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amici curiae of Pacific Legal Foundation, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 16 2014||Brief amicus curiae of Dalton J. Oldham filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Oct 28 2014||Reply of appellants Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 30 2014||Proposal of counsel for the appellees to lodge copies of the complaint in Figgs, et al. v. Quitman County, et al. VIDED|
|Oct 31 2014||Motion for divided argument filed by appellants GRANTED.|
|Oct 31 2014||Motion of the Solicitor General for enlargement of time for oral argument, for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, and for divided argument GRANTED and the time is to be divided as follows: 30 minutes for appellants, 30 minutes for appellees, and 10 minutes for the United States as amicus curiae. VIDED|
|Nov 12 2014||Argued. For appellants in 13-895: Eric Schnapper, Seattle, Wash. For appellants in 13-1138: Richard Pildes, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae: Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Andrew L. Brasher, Solicitor General, Montgomery, Ala.|
|Nov 13 2014||Letter of appellants Alabama Democratic Conference, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 31 2014||The Clerk has approved appellants' lodging proposal of August 11, 2014. Copies of Joe L. Reed's affidavit lodged. (Distributed)|
|Mar 25 2015||Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas and Alito, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion.|
|Apr 27 2015||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
Wait wut.. RBG ghost-wrote the equal protection bits of Obergefell?!
And I learned this on @SCOTUSblog’s TikTok?! https://www.tiktok.com/@scotusblog/video/6922179577724931333
"This is not our first commission rodeo” says Levy. 😉
Love this write up of the @BrookingsInst's panel yesterday with @Susan_Hennessey, @danepps,@cdkang76, and @mollyereynolds.
Thanks, @SCOTUSblog and Kalvis Golde!
Spilling SCOTUS tea on TikTok today. Well, actually, @eskridgebill spilled the tea, we just tok’d about it. 🍵
The Supreme Court got rid of several cases this morning -- in one fell swoop. Read @AHoweBlogger's latest coverage of the emoluments cases, spiritual advisers at Texas executions, Texas abortion policies, COVID restrictions, and NY political corruption.
Justices vacate rulings on Trump and emoluments - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court on Monday morning released orders from the justices’ private conference on Friday, Jan. 22. The justices once again did not ac...
In this morning's orders list, SCOTUS took no action on pending cert petitions involving:
- Mississippi's near-ban on abortions after 15 weeks,
- a Trump rule banning Title X clinics from providing abortion referrals,
- the Trump administration's "public charge" immigration rule.
Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.
Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.