|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-680||E.D. Va.||Dec 5, 2016||Mar 1, 2017||7-1||Kennedy||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) The district court employed an incorrect legal standard in determining that race did not predominate in 11 of 12 new state legislative districts drawn by the Virginia State Legislature after the 2010 census; and (2) the district court's judgment regarding District 75 -- that the legislature had good reason to believe that a 55 percent target for black voting-age population was necessary to avoid diminishing the ability of black voters to elect their preferred candidates, which at the time would have violated Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 -- is consistent with the basic narrow tailoring analysis explained in Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama.
Judgment: Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded, 7-1, in an opinion by Justice Kennedy on March 1, 2017. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Nov 20 2015||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due December 23, 2015)|
|Dec 04 2015||Waiver of right of appellees Virginia State Board of Elections, et al. to respond filed.|
|Dec 22 2015||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Virginia House of Delegates, and Speaker William J. Howell.|
|Dec 30 2015||Reply of appellants Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Appellants filed.|
|Jan 06 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 22, 2016.|
|Jan 11 2016||Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of Virginia.|
|Jan 13 2016||Record Requested.|
|Jan 21 2016||Record received from the USDC-Eastern District of Virginia (3 boxes). The remainder of the record is electronic and available on PACER.|
|Jan 27 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 19, 2016.|
|Feb 22 2016||Supplemental brief of appellants Golden Bethune-Hill, et al., Appellants filed. (Distributed)|
|Feb 23 2016||Supplemental brief of appellees Virginia House of Delegates, and Speaker William J. Howell filed. (Distributed)|
|May 23 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 26, 2016.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 2, 2016.|
|Jun 06 2016||PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.|
|Jun 23 2016||Record from U.S.D.C. Eastern District of Virginia has been returned.|
|Jun 30 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 7, 2016.|
|Jun 30 2016||The time to file appellees' and intervenor-appellees' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 7, 2016.|
|Sep 07 2016||Joint appendix filed. (6 Volumes)|
|Sep 07 2016||Brief of appellants Golden Bethune-Hill, et al. filed.|
|Sep 09 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support, of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Appellants.|
|Sep 13 2016||Brief amicus curiae of OneVirginia2021: Virginians for Fair Redistricting filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States supporting vacatur in part and affirmance in part filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for Appellees.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of NAACP and Virginia NAACP filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. filed.|
|Sep 14 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in support of neither party filed.|
|Oct 03 2016||Extension of time within which to file appellees' and intervenor-appellees' brief on the merits to and including October 17, 2016.|
|Oct 12 2016||Letter from counsel for Defendants-Appellees, Virginia State Board of Elections, et al., notifying the Clerk they will not file a separate brief on the merits.|
|Oct 17 2016||Brief of appellees Virginia House of Delegates, and Speaker William J. Howell filed.|
|Oct 20 2016||Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, and the Center for Equal Opportunity filed.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 5, 2016|
|Oct 21 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amici curiae of Political Scientists Thomas L. Brunell, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2016||Brief amici curiae of National Black Chamber of Commerce and The Hispanic Leadership Fund filed. (Distributed)|
|Oct 24 2016||Lodging proposal from amici National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Leadership Fund to lodge copies of a report (the "Lowen Report"), excerpts of which are include in the appendix to their amici brief.|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 01 2016||Record requested from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of Virginia.|
|Nov 04 2016||Letter from Appellants opposing National Black Chamber of Commerce and the Hispanic Leadership Fund's proposed lodging.|
|Nov 04 2016||Records received from the U.S.D.C. Eastern Dist. of Virginia is electronic and located on PACER. Also received are 3 boxes of Trial Exhibits.|
|Nov 14 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 16 2016||Reply of appellants Golden Bethune-Hill, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 05 2016||Argued. For appellants: Mark E. Elias, Washington, D. C. For United States, as amicus curiae: Irv Gornstein, Counselor to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C.|
|Mar 01 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, and case REMANDED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part.|
|Mar 10 2017||Application (16A887) to issue the judgment forthwith, submitted to Justice Kennedy.|
|Mar 14 2017||Response Requested by Justice Kennedy due no later than Thursday, March 16, 2017.|
|Mar 16 2017||Response to application from respondent Virginia House of Delegates and Speaker William J. Howell filed.|
|Mar 20 2017||Application (16A887) denied by Justice Kennedy.|
|Mar 27 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
NEW: The Supreme Court will review the legality of Biden's student-debt relief plan. The justices will hear oral argument in February. In the meantime, the plan remains blocked as a result of lower-court rulings.
Today at SCOTUS: One oral argument on the statute of limitations in the Quiet Title Act. Is it "jurisdictional"? Or just a "claim-processing rule"? That might sound arcane, but cases like these affect the ability of citizens to sue the federal government.
A squabble over a forest road may pave the way for further narrowing of “jurisdictional” timing rules - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in Wilkins v. United States is next in a protracted line of cases in which the court ...
Bribery or lobbying?
Percoco v. United States in a TikTok minute.
JUST IN: For the second time in the past week, SCOTUS denies an emergency request to block the execution of Kevin Johnson. The execution is scheduled for tonight in Missouri. Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissent from the brief order allowing the execution to proceed.
Today at SCOTUS: Can the federal government prioritize certain groups of unauthorized immigrants for deportation over others? And do states have standing to sue the government if they disagree with those priorities? @AHoweBlogger previews U.S. v. Texas:
In U.S. v. Texas, broad questions over immigration enforcement and states’ ability to challenge federal policies - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on Tuesday in a dispute over the Biden administration’s authority to...
Today at SCOTUS: The justices return to the bench for oral arguments in a pair of public-corruption cases, both stemming from scandals in New York politics that arose during Andrew Cuomo's time as governor. In both cases, the defendants are claiming prosecutorial overreach.