|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.