|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.|
The clerk of the court just notified counsel in a juvenile sentencing case—that was sent back to a lower court this week in light of the court's decision in Jones v. Mississippi—that Justice Kagan unwittingly failed to recuse herself after participating in part of the case as SG.
It’s a quiet week, so now is a great time to listen to Judge John Owens regale @AHoweBlogger with the tale of Ashton Embry and the greatest leak in Supreme Court history.
Come for the high drama, stay for the good humor and an RBG story or two.
The biggest leak in Supreme Court history - SCOTUSblog
In a city full of anonymous sources, the Supreme Court is famously leak-proof. But a century ago, the court had ...
The US Supreme Court should overturn the Facebook’s “Oversight Board’s” “ruling” which upholds the outlawing of the 45th President of the United States from social media.
This is a big tech, corporate oligarchy without standing and it’s gone too far. Enough is enough.
The Supreme Court will hear its last case of the term today at 10:00 a.m. EDT.
Here’s a summary of Terry v. United States in a TikTok minute.
Tomorrow, the Supreme Court will tackle the legacy of the Reagan-era War on Drugs and Congress' attempt to reduce the punishment disparity between crack-cocaine and powder cocaine offenses.
As @ekownyankah notes, this case has a little bit of everything.
In final case the court will hear this term, profound issues of race, incarceration and the war on drugs - SCOTUSblog
Academics naturally believe that even obscure cases in their field are underappreciated; each minor tax or bankruptcy ...
JUST IN: Another shadow-docket filing in which a church argues that state COVID-related restrictions lack sufficient carveouts for religious worship. This one challenges Colorado's restrictions. It relies heavily on last month's ruling in Tandon v. Newsom.
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.