Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel

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)

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
15-680	E.D. Va.	Dec 5, 2016 Tr.Aud.	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.

Symposium: Bringing sanity to racial-gerrymandering jurisprudence (Anita Earls)
Symposium: The Goldilocks principle of redistricting (Hans von Spakovsky)
Symposium: A recipe for continued confusion and more judicial involvement in redistricting (Andrew Brasher)
Symposium: Court provides clarification of redistricting challenges, but conflict on use of race remains (Kimberly Hermann)
Symposium: Court clarifies review of racial gerrymandering, but does not impose strict scrutiny on every intentional creation of a majority-minority district (Kristen Clarke and Ezra Rosenberg)
Symposium: The court continues winding down unnecessary racial redistricting (Richard Pildes)
Opinion analysis: Court sends majority-minority districts back for another look in Virginia gerrymandering case (Amy Howe)
Argument analysis: Lots of questions, no easy answers in redistricting cases (Amy Howe)
Argument previews: Racial gerrymandering returns to the court (Amy Howe)
Court reopens race and death penalty issues (Lyle Denniston)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
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.

Featured Posts

Argument preview: Justices to hear oral argument on additional time for sex offenders who violate terms of supervised release – Amy Howe

Argument analysis: Meandering argument suggests justices likely to narrow bankrupts’ power to rescind licenses in bankruptcy – Ronald Mann

Opinion analysis: A win for one taxpayer, but not many more – Daniel Hemel
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.
On Wednesday the justices released their opinions in Dawson v. Steager and Timbs v. Indiana.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Return Mail Inc. v. United States Postal Service.
On Wednesday, the justices heard 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
- Dawson v. Steager By taxing the federal pension benefits of U.S. Marshals Service retiree James Dawson, while exempting from taxation the pension benefits of certain state and local law enforcement officers, West Virginia unlawfully discriminates against Dawson as 4 U.S.C. §111 forbids.
- Timbs v. Indiana The Eighth Amendment’s excessive fines clause is an incorporated protection applicable to the states under the 14th Amendment’s due process clause.
- 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.
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 45

Cases decided 13

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	45
Cases decided	13
Summary reversals	3
Merits cases granted to date	74