|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|14-232||D. Ariz.||Dec 8, 2015||Apr 20, 2016||8-0||Breyer||OT 2015|
Holding: The federal district court did not err in upholding Arizona's redistricting plan because the plan's population deviations predominantly reflected efforts to achieve compliance with the Voting Rights Act, not to secure political advantage for the Democratic Party.
Judgment: Affirmed, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on April 20, 2016.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Aug 25 2014||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due September 29, 2014)|
|Sep 15 2014||Order extending time to file response to statement as to jurisdiction to and including October 29, 2014.|
|Sep 17 2014||Waiver of right of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Ken Bennett to respond filed.|
|Oct 20 2014||Order further extending time to file response to statement as to jurisdiction to and including November 13, 2014.|
|Nov 13 2014||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, et al.|
|Dec 2 2014||Reply of appellants Wesley W. Harris, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 3 2014||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 9, 2015.|
|Jun 25 2015||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 29, 2015.|
|Jun 30 2015||PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.|
|Jul 24 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellants.|
|Jul 29 2015||The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 4, 2015.|
|Jul 29 2015||The time to file appellees' brief on the merits is extended to and including October 26, 2015.|
|Jul 31 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 Michele Reagan.|
|Sep 4 2015||Brief of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants filed.|
|Sep 4 2015||Joint appendix filed.|
|Sep 4 2015||Brief of appellants Wesley W. Harris, et al. filed.|
|Sep 10 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Southern Coalition for Social Justice in support of neither party filed.|
|Oct 9 2015||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Tuesday, DECEMBER 8, 2015|
|Oct 19 2015||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.|
|Oct 19 2015||Record requested from U.S.D.C. District of Arizona.|
|Oct 26 2015||Brief of appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission filed.|
|Oct 27 2015||CIRCULATED|
|Oct 30 2015||Motion for divided argument filed by appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants.|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of the United States filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Former Officials of the U.S. Department of Justice Who Enforced the Voting Rights Act filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 2 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of The Navajo Nation and Leonard Gorman filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief amicus curiae of Samuel S. Wang, Ph.D. filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 2 2015||Brief amici curiae of Professors Nicholas Stephanoupolis and Simon Jackman filed. (Distributed)|
|Nov 24 2015||Motion for divided argument filed by appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants. GRANTED.|
|Nov 24 2015||Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 25 2015||Reply of appellant Wesley W. Harris, et al. (Distributed)|
|Nov 25 2015||Letter and 8 1/2 x 11 inch copies of exhibits that appear in appellants' brief on the merits received.|
|Nov 25 2015||Reply of appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 8 2015||Argued. For appellants: Mark F. Hearne, II, St. Louis, Mo. For appellee Arizona Secretary of State Michele Reagan in support of appellants: Mark Brnovich, Arizona Attorney General, Phoenix, Ariz. For appellee Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission: Paul M. Smith, Washington, D. C.; and Sarah E. Harrington, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|Apr 20 2016||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Breyer, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court.|
|May 23 2016||JUDGMENT ISSUED|
In 2019, the Supreme Court limited the scope of a federal law that bans people convicted of felonies from having a gun. Up this morning at the court: back-to-back cases that will decide how many felon-in-possession convictions will need new trials or pleas under that 2019 ruling.
NEW: SCOTUS adds one new case to its docket for next term: Hemphill v. New York, a criminal-procedure case about the interaction between hearsay rules and the right of defendants to confront witnesses against them. Still no action on major petitions involving guns and abortion.
The court will release orders at 9:30 a.m. EDT followed by oral argument in two cases.
First, whether Alaska Native regional and village corporations are “Indian Tribes” for purposes of CARES Act Covid-related relief.
By @StanfordLaw’s Gregory Ablavsky.
Are Alaska Native corporations Indian tribes? A multimillion-dollar question - SCOTUSblog
Are Alaska Native corporations — special corporations that Congress created in 1971 when it resolved Native claims ...
It's official: In the first-ever SCOTUS bracketology tournament, our readers have chosen CHIEF JUSTICE EARL WARREN as the greatest justice in history. The author of Brown v. Board, Loving v. Virginia, and Miranda v. Arizona defeated top-seeded John Marshall in the final round.
We've reached the final round of SCOTUS bracketology, and two illustrious chief justices are facing off for the championship. One wrote Marbury v. Madison. The other wrote Brown v. Board. Our full write-up on both finalists is here: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/04/the-great-chief-and-the-super-chief-a-final-showdown-in-supreme-court-march-madness/
Cast your vote below!
NEW: The Supreme Court will issue opinion(s?) next Thursday April 22. We’re still waiting on decisions in the ACA case and Fulton v. City of Philadelphia about religious liberty and LGBT rights.
Four Democrats unveiled legislation today to expand the size of the Supreme Court from nine justices to 13 -- but Democratic leaders in both the House and Senate quickly threw cold water on the proposal.
Here's our report from @jamesromoser:
Bill to enlarge the Supreme Court faces dim prospects in Congress - SCOTUSblog
Four congressional Democrats introduced legislation Thursday to expand the number of seats on the Supreme Court from ...
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.