Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Editor's Note :

Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections

Argument analysis: Justices grapple with meaning of final decision made after a hearing – Kathryn Moore

Opinion analysis: Justices affirm maritime liability for manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: Sorting out a thorny statute-of-limitations question in False Claims Act case – Mark Walsh

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 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

Conference of March 15, 2019

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 analysis: Justices grapple with meaning of final decision made after a hearing – Kathryn Moore

Opinion analysis: Justices affirm maritime liability for manufacturers of asbestos-dependent equipment – Ronald Mann

Argument analysis: Sorting out a thorny statute-of-limitations question in False Claims Act case – Mark Walsh
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 March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
There is a possibility of opinions on Wednesday.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices hear oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices meet for their March 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
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
- BNSF Railway Company v. Loos A railroad’s payment to an employee for working time lost due to an on-the-job injury is taxable “compensation” under the Railroad Retirement Tax Act.
- Fourth Estate Public Benefit Corp. v. Wall-Street.com Registration occurs, and a copyright claimant may commence an infringement suit, when the Copyright Office registers a copyright.
- Rimini Street Inc. v. Oracle USA Inc. A federal district court’s discretion to award “full costs” to a party in copyright litigation pursuant to 17 U. S. C. §505 is limited to the six categories specified in the general costs statute codified at 28 U. S. C. §§1821 and 1920.
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.
- 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.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 51

Cases decided 24

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

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

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	51
Cases decided	24
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)

29
Conference