Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
13-1314	D. Ariz.	Mar 2, 2015 Tr.Aud.	Jun 29, 2015	5-4	Ginsburg	OT 2014

Holding: The Elections Clause and 2 U.S.C. § 2a(c) permit Arizona’s use of an independent commission to adopt congressional districts.

Judgment: Affirmed, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Ginsburg on June 29, 2015. Chief Justice Roberts filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito joined. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Thomas joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion, in which Justice Scalia joined.

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Independent redistricting commission survives challenge: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
Opinion analysis: A cure for partisan gerrymandering? (Lyle Denniston)
Independent redistricting commission in jeopardy? Today’s oral argument in Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Literalism vs. the power of the people (Lyle Denniston)
Court to hear dispute over redistricting power: In Plain English (Amy Howe)
Argument preview: Who, exactly, is "the legislature"? (Lyle Denniston)
Fate of non-partisan redistricting on the line (Lyle Denniston)
Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Apr 28 2014	Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due May 30, 2014)
May 6 2014	Waiver of right of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to respond filed.
May 8 2014	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including June 30, 2014.
Jun 30 2014	Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission and Commissioners.
Jul 14 2014	Reply of appellant Arizona State Legislature, Appellant filed.
Jul 16 2014	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 29, 2014.
Oct 2 2014	Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits limited to the following questions: 1) Do the Elections Clause of the United States Constitution and 2 U. S. C. §2a(c) permit Arizonas use of a commission to adopt congressional districts? 2) Does the Arizona Legislature have standing to bring this suit?
Nov 7 2014	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellant.
Nov 14 2014	The time to file the joint appendix and appellant's brief on the merits is extended to and including December 2, 2014.
Nov 14 2014	The time to file appellees' brief on the merits is extended to and including January 16, 2015.
Dec 2 2014	Brief of appellant Arizona State Legislature filed.
Dec 2 2014	Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed.)
Dec 9 2014	Brief amicus curiae of National Conference of State Legislatures filed.
Dec 9 2014	Brief amicus curiae of Coolidge-Reagan Foundation filed.
Dec 22 2014	SET FOR ARGUMENT ON Monday, March 2, 2015
Dec 22 2014	Record requested from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Arizona.
Dec 23 2014	Record from U.S.D.C. Dist. of Arizona is electronic and located on PACER.
Jan 5 2015	Application (14A722) to extend the time to file a reply brief from February 17, 2015 to February 23, 2015, submitted to Justice Kennedy.
Jan 7 2015	CIRCULATED.
Jan 7 2015	Application (14A722) denied by Justice Kennedy.
Jan 13 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Appellees the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.
Jan 15 2015	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Appellee Arizona Secretary of State.
Jan 16 2015	Brief of appellees Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 22 2015	Brief amici curiae of Nathaniel Persily, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Thomas Mann, and Norman Ornstein filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of State and Local Elected Officials filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former Gov. Jim Edgar, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Former California Governors George Deukmejian, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Scholars and Historians of Congressional Redistricting filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of The Campaign Legal Center, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Jack Rakove, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of The States of Washington, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amicus curiae of California Citizens Redistricting Commission filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of Members of Congress filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amici curiae of League of Women Voters of Arizona, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Jan 23 2015	Brief amicus curiae of Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law filed. (Distributed)
Feb 17 2015	Reply of appellant Arizona State Legislature filed. (Distributed)
Feb 20 2015	Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
Mar 2 2015	Argued. For appellant: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Eric J. Feigin, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae); and Seth P. Waxman, Washington, D. C.
Jun 29 2015	Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Ginsburg, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Roberts, C. J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., joined. Scalia, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Scalia, J., joined.
Jul 31 2015	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
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 April 12 conference on Monday; the justices called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in Rutledge v. Pharmaceutical Care Management Association.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Iancu v. Brunetti and Emulex Corp. v. Varjabedian.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Parker Drilling Management Services, Ltd. v. Newton and North Carolina Department of Revenue v. The Kimberley Rice Kaestner 1992 Family Trust.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in United States v. Davis and McDonough v. Smith.
On Thursday, the justices met for their April 18 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Department of Commerce v. New York
  (1) Whether the district court erred in enjoining the secretary of the Department of Commerce from reinstating a question about citizenship to the 2020 decennial census on the ground that the secretary’s decision violated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 701 et seq; (2) whether, in an action seeking to set aside agency action under the APA, a district court may order discovery outside the administrative record to probe the mental processes of the agency decisionmaker -- including by compelling the testimony of high-ranking executive branch officials -- without a strong showing that the decisionmaker disbelieved the objective reasons in the administrative record, irreversibly prejudged the issue, or acted on a legally forbidden basis; and (3) whether the secretary’s decision to add a citizenship question to the decennial census violated the enumeration clause of the U.S. Constitution.
- 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.
- 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
- Biestek v. Berryhill A vocational expert’s refusal to provide private market-survey data during a Social Security disability benefits hearing upon the applicant’s request does not categorically preclude the testimony from counting as “substantial evidence” in federal court under 42 U. S. C. §405(g).
- Bucklew v. Precythe Baze v. Rees and Glossip v. Gross govern all Eighth Amendment challenges alleging that a method of execution inflicts unconstitutionally cruel pain; Russell Bucklew’s as-applied challenge to Missouri’s single-drug execution protocol -- that it would cause him severe pain because of his particular medical condition -- fails to satisfy the Baze-Glossip test.
- Lorenzo v. Securities and Exchange Commission Dissemination of false or misleading statements with intent to defraud can fall within the scope of Securities and Exchange Commission Rules 10b–5(a) and (c), as well as the relevant statutory provisions, even if the disseminator cannot be held liable under Rule 10b–5(b).
- Republic of Sudan v. Harrison When civil process is served on a foreign state under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, 28 U. S. C. §1608(a)(3) requires a mailing to be sent directly to the foreign minister’s office in the foreign state.
- Sturgeon v. Frost Alaska’s Nation River is not public land; and like all non-public lands and navigable waters within Alaska’s national parks, it is exempt under the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act from the National Park Service’s ordinary regulatory authority.
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.
- Barton v. Barr Whether a lawfully admitted permanent resident who is not seeking admission to the United States can be “render[ed] ... inadmissible” for the purposes of the stop-time rule, 8 U.S.C. § 1229b(d)(1).
- 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 63

Cases decided 31

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Apr. 2019

Su	Mo	Tu	We	Th	Fr	Sa
	1 Orders Opinions	2	3	4	5	6
7	8	9	10	11	12 Conference	13
14	15 Orders IANCU V. BRUNETTI (18-302) EMULEX CORP. V. VARJABEDIAN (18-459)	16 PARKER DRILLING MANAGEMENT SERVICES V. NEWTON (18-389) NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE V. KAESTNER FAMILY TRUST (18-457)	17 UNITED STATES V. DAVIS (18-431) MCDONOUGH V. SMITH (18-485)	18 Conference	19	20
21	22 Orders FOOD MARKETING INSTITUTE V. ARGUS LEADER MEDIA (18-481) FORT BEND COUNTY, TEXAS V. DAVIS (18-525)	23 MITCHELL V. WISCONSIN (18-6210) REHAIF V. UNITED STATES (17-9560) DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE V. NEW YORK (18-966) Opinions	24 QUARLES V. UNITED STATES (17-778) TAGGART V. LORENZEN (18-489)	25	26 Conference	27
28	29 Orders	30

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Thomas at Pepperdine Law School

On March 30, Justice Clarence Thomas spoke with former clerk Brittney Lane Kubisch and Pepperdine University President-elect James Gash at Pepperdine University School of Law. Thomas told the audience that he had no plans to retire from the Supreme Court.

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.

Cases argued	63
Cases decided	31
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

Editor's Note :

Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Featured Posts

Academic highlight: Levitt on the collateral consequences of Department of Commerce v. New York – Amanda Frost

New rules mean tighter deadlines, fewer words – Amy Howe

Relist Watch: The Muller Report – John Elwood

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Conference of April 19, 2019

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Apr. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award