|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.|
Today at the court:
A nuts-and-bolts question of civil procedure. After an appeal is decided, do courts have discretion to limit the administrative “costs” that the prevailing party can recover from the losing party?
Argument begins at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Justices to consider awards of costs of appellate litigation - SCOTUSblog
Wednesday’s argument in City of San Antonio v. Hotels.com brings the justices a basic nuts-and-bolts question of...
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.
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.