Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

Editor's Note :

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh

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)

Linked with:

Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-895	M.D. Ala.	Nov 12, 2014 Tr.Aud.	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.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 25, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.

Opinion analysis: A small victory for minority voters, or a case with “profound” constitutional implications? (Richard Hasen)
Argument analysis: Hitting the “sweet spot” on race, party, and redistricting? (Richard Hasen)
Argument preview: Racial gerrymandering, partisan politics, and the future of the Voting Rights Act (Richard Hasen)
Petitions of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jan 23 2014	Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due February 26, 2014)
Jan 23 2014	Appendix of Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al. filed.
Feb 4 2014	Order extending time to file response to statement as to jurisdiction to and including March 28, 2014.
Mar 24 2014	Order further extending time to file response to petition to and including April 21, 2014.
Apr 21 2014	Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Alabama, et al.
May 2 2014	Reply of appellants Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 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 2 presented by the statement as to jurisdiction. Probable jurisdiction is noted in No. 13-1138 limited to Question 1 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 13 2014	Brief of appellants Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al. filed.
Aug 13 2014	Joint appendix filed. VIDED. (Statement of costs filed)
Aug 15 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellants.
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 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 Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed. VIDED.
Sep 4 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 12, 2014. VIDED.
Sep 8 2014	Record requested from 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
Sep 29 2014	Application (14A335) granted by Justice Thomas to file a consolidated appellees' brief on the merits in excess of the word limit provided that the brief does not exceed 22,500 words.
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 27 2014	Reply of appellants Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, 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 Solicitor General 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.
Jan 30 2015	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by appellants Alabama Legislative Black Caucus, et al. (Distributed)
Feb 23 2015	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by appellants GRANTED.
Feb 26 2015	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by appellees Alabama, et al. (Distributed)
Mar 9 2015	Motion to file a supplemental brief after argument filed by respondent GRANTED.
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

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to consider whether First Amendment applies to public-access channels – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Justices seem divided about government right to challenge patents in administrative process – Ronald Mann

A "view" from the courtroom: Back to the bench for Justice Ginsburg – Mark Walsh
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.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday at 10 a.m.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices hear 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
- 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.
- Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. The sale of an invention to a third party who is obligated to keep the invention confidential may place the invention “on sale” for purposes of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, which bars a person from receiving a patent on an invention that was “in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention,” 35 U. S. C. §102(a)(1).
- New Prime Inc. v. Oliveira A court should determine whether the Federal Arbitration Act’s Section 1 exclusion for disputes involving the “contracts of employment” of certain transportation workers applies before ordering arbitration; here, truck driver Dominic Oliveira’s independent contractor operating agreement with New Prime Inc. falls within that exception.
- Stokeling v. United States The Armed Career Criminal Act’s elements clause encompasses a robbery offense that, like Florida’s law, requires the criminal to overcome the victim’s resistance.
- Culbertson v. Berryhill The Social Security Act’s fee cap of 25 percent of past-due benefits imposed on attorneys who successfully represent Title II benefit claimants in court proceedings applies only to fees for court representation and not to aggregate fees for both court and agency representation.
- Henry Schein Inc. v. Archer and White Sales Inc. The “wholly groundless” exception to the general rule that courts must enforce contracts that delegate threshold arbitrability questions to an arbitrator, not a court, is inconsistent with the Federal Arbitration Act and Supreme Court precedent.
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 44

Cases decided 11

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	44
Cases decided	11
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74