|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|13-895||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.
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.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|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|
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
We're so excited about our April 15 Live Webinar (w/ @HarvardACS & @HarvardFedSoc), Covering the Court, featuring an all-star lineup of panelists @jduffyrice, @katieleebarlow, @whignewtons, & @stevenmazie! _👩⚖️👩⚖️👩⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️👨⚖️_ Register here ➡️ https://harvard.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_k_b_9IPBQ_GV37rpsjF9kw
Senator Markey (D-Ma) is delivering remarks right now in front of the Supreme Court introducing the Judiciary Act of 2021 to expand the court to 13 justices. He’s flanked by Chairman of House Judiciary, Jerry Nadler (D-NY), and Hank Johnson (D-Ga).
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here:
Cast your vote below!
The “great chief” and the “super chief”: A final showdown in Supreme Court March Madness - SCOTUSblog
Forget Ali vs. Frazier, Celtics vs. Lakers, or Evert vs. Navratilova. It’s time for Marshall vs. Warren. After...
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.