|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|16-1023||M.D.N.C.||Not Argued||Jun 5, 2017||n/a||Per Curiam||OT 2016|
Holding: In ordering special elections and suspending residency requirements in the state constitution after holding that 28 majority-black districts drawn by the North Carolina General Assembly were unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, the district court did not adequately grapple with the case-specific interests -- such as the severity and nature of the particular constitutional violation, the extent of the likely disruption to the ordinary processes of governance if early elections are imposed, and the need to act with proper judicial restraint when intruding on state sovereignty -- on both sides of the remedial question.
Judgment: Vacated and remanded in a per curiam opinion on June 5, 2017.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Dec 30 2016||Application (16A646) for a stay of remedial order pending resolution of direct appeal in this Court, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jan 3 2017||Response Requested due no later than noon on January 9, 2017|
|Jan 9 2017||Response to application from respondent Sandra Little Covington, et al. filed.|
|Jan 10 2017||Reply of applicant North Carolina, et al., Appellants filed.|
|Jan 10 2017||Application (16A646) referred to the Court.|
|Jan 10 2017||Application (16A646) granted by the Court. The application for stay of the order of the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, case No. 1:15-CV-399, entered on November 29, 2016, presented to The Chief Justice and by him referred to the Court is granted, pending the timely filing of a statement as to jurisdiction. Should such statement be timely filed, this order shall remain in effect pending this Courts action on the appeal. If the judgment should be affirmed, or the appeal dismissed, this stay shall expire automatically. In the event jurisdiction is noted or postponed, this order will remain in effect pending the sending down of the judgment of this Court.|
|Feb 21 2017||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due March 27, 2017)|
|Feb 28 2017||Motion to affirm filed by appellees Sandra Little Covington, et al.|
|Mar 14 2017||Opposition to motion to affirm of appellants North Carolina, et al., Appellants filed.|
|Mar 15 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017.|
|May 22 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017.|
|May 24 2017||Supplemental brief of appellants North Carolina, et al., Appellants filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|May 30 2017||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017.|
|May 31 2017||Response to supplemental brief from appellees Sandra Little Covington, et al. filed. VIDED. (Distributed)|
|Jun 5 2017||The judgment is VACATED, and the case is REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Jun 6 2017||Application (16A1203) for issuance of the judgment forthwith, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jun 7 2017||Response to application (16A1203) requested by The Chief Justice, due Tuesday, June 13, 2017, by 3 p.m. ET.|
|Jun 13 2017||Response to application from Philip E. Berger, et al. filed.|
|Jun 13 2017||Response to application from North Carolina, et al. filed.|
|Jun 14 2017||Reply of Sandra Little Covington, et al. filed.|
|Jun 15 2017||Application (16A1203) referred to the Court.|
|Jun 15 2017||Application (16A1203) denied by the Court.|
|Jun 30 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...