|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|15-1262||M.D. N.C.||Dec 5, 2016||May 22, 2017||5-3||Kagan||OT 2016|
Holding: (1) North Carolina's victory in a similar state-court lawsuit does not dictate the disposition of this case or alter the applicable standard of review; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the state's interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not justify that consideration of race; and (3) the district court also did not clearly err by finding that race predominated in the redrawing of District 12.
Judgment: Affirmed, 5-3, in an opinion by Justice Kagan on May 22, 2017. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Apr 08 2016||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due May 11, 2016)|
|May 11 2016||Motion to affirm filed by appellees David Harris and Christine Bowser|
|May 24 2016||Reply of appellants Patrick McCrory, Governor of North Carolina, et al. filed.|
|May 31 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 16, 2016.|
|Jun 20 2016||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 23, 2016.|
|Jun 27 2016||PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED.|
|Jul 06 2016||Record received from U.S.D.C. Middle District of North Carolina (Plaintiffs' Notice of Appeal). The record is electronic.|
|Aug 03 2016||The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 12, 2016.|
|Sep 12 2016||Brief of appellants Patrick McCrory, Governor of North Carolina, et al. filed.|
|Sep 12 2016||Joint appendix filed (7 Volumes). (Statement of costs 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 appellants.|
|Sep 16 2016||Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for appellees.|
|Sep 16 2016||Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed.|
|Oct 12 2016||Brief of appellees David Harris and Christine Bowser filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Brief amici curiae of Campaign Legal Center, et al. filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of United States filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law filed.|
|Oct 19 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.|
|Oct 21 2016||SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, December 5, 2016|
|Oct 26 2016||CIRCULATED.|
|Nov 01 2016||Record requested from U.S.D.C. Middle Dist. of North Carolina.|
|Nov 07 2016||Motion of the Acting Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.|
|Nov 10 2016||Record received from the U.S.D.C. Middle Dist. of North Carolina is electronic.|
|Nov 14 2016||Reply of appellants Patrick McCrory, Governor of North Carolina, et al. filed. (Distributed)|
|Dec 05 2016||Argued. For appellants: Paul D. Clement, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Mark E. Elias, Washington, D. C.; and Nicole A. Saharsky, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.)|
|May 22 2017||Adjudged to be AFFIRMED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion. Alito, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which Roberts, C. J., and Kennedy, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.|
|Jun 26 2017||JUDGMENT ISSUED.|
A majority of the Supreme Court seems inclined to uphold Mississippi's 15-week abortion law, but the six conservative justices appear divided about whether to entirely overrule Roe v. Wade. @AHoweBlogger's first take from this morning's argument:
Majority of court appears poised to uphold Mississippi’s ban on most abortions after 15 weeks - SCOTUSblog
It has been nearly 30 years since the Supreme Court’s decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which reaffirme...
Starting momentarily: Oral argument in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a case involving Mississippi’s attempt to ban nearly all abortions after 15 weeks. The state has asked the court to overturn Roe v. Wade. We’ll be live-tweeting the argument here in this thread.
Twenty minutes before the start of oral argument, here’s the scene outside the Supreme Court.
Photos by @katieleebarlow.
TODAY AT SCOTUS: The case that could determine the future of abortion in America. Oral argument begins at 10 a.m. EST. We'll be live-tweeting the full argument. You can also listen live here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx.
Here's our preview from @AHoweBlogger: https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/11/roe-v-wade-hangs-in-balance-as-reshaped-court-prepares-to-hear-biggest-abortion-case-in-decades/
Our cross-platform coverage of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization includes, of course, TikTok. Follow us there if you don't already! And tune in for @katieleebarlow's live dispatch from outside the court tomorrow morning at 9:30 a.m. EST.
SCOTUS was inundated with "friend of the court" briefs -- more than 140 of them -- in the abortion case being heard tomorrow. We reviewed them all. Here's a guide to the many arguments being pushed by academics, politicians, & interest groups in the case.
We read all the amicus briefs in Dobbs so you don’t have to - SCOTUSblog
More than 140 amicus briefs were filed in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the potentially momentou...