|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.|
Having covered the Supreme Court for six decades, @lylden has seen a lot of changes at 1 First Street. In the latest piece in our series on the post-COVID court, Lyle examines how the court's pandemic operations could spur permanent reform.
How has COVID-19 changed the Supreme Court? And are any of those changes worth keeping? Today we launch a symposium examining those questions.
First up, a piece from @stevenmazie on how to reform oral arguments after the pandemic.
The court after COVID: A recipe for oral argument reform - SCOTUSblog
The Supreme Court has not yet announced whether it will return to normal operations when the 2021-22 term begins ...
NEW shadow-docket case: New York landlords ask SCOTUS for an emergency order to prevent the state from continuing to enforce its COVID-related eviction moratorium. They say the moratorium "runs roughshod" over their constitutional rights.
Filing here: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A8-1.pdf
New on the shadow docket: Florida seeks an emergency order blocking CDC policies that substantially limit cruise ships from sailing.
Florida asks #SCOTUS to block, pending appeal, CDC restrictions imposed on cruise industry b/c of COVID-19 pandemic: https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/21A5.pdf
NEW: Mississippi formally asks the Supreme Court to overturn its landmark abortion case, Roe v. Wade, in latest court filing. https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/19/19-1392/184703/20210722161332385_19-1392BriefForPetitioners.pdf
Biden’s SCOTUS reform commission met yesterday and discussed several reform ideas including adding justices and adopting a formal code of ethics.
Term limits emerged as a popular idea. But how to implement it — via statute or constitutional amendment?
Term limits emerge as popular proposal at latest meeting of court-reform commission - SCOTUSblog
The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court reconvened on Tuesday to hear from a new set of experts on vari...