|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
|11-1184||S.D. W. Va.||Not Argued||Sep 25, 2012||N/A||Per Curiam||OT 2011|
Holding: In holding that West Virginia’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan violates the principle of “one person, one vote,” the district court misapplied the standard, set out in Karcher v. Daggett (1983), for evaluating challenges to redistricting plans and failed to afford appropriate deference to West Virginia’s reasonable exercise of its political judgment. Although West Virginia could have adopted a plan with lower variations in population among the districts, the state carried its burden to show that population deviations were necessary to achieve legitimate state objectives, such as avoiding contests between incumbents and not splitting political subdivisions.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded in a per curiam opinion on September 25, 2012.
|Date||Proceedings and Orders |
|Jan 13 2012||Application (11A674) for a stay pending appeal, submitted to The Chief Justice.|
|Jan 13 2012||Response to application (11A674) requested by The Chief Justice, due Tuesday, January 17, 2012, by 3:30 p.m.|
|Jan 17 2012||Response to application from respondent Jefferson County Commission, et al. filed.|
|Jan 18 2012||Reply of applicant Natalie E. Tennant, West Virginia Secretary of State, et al. filed.|
|Jan 20 2012||Application (11A674) referred to the Court.|
|Jan 20 2012||Application (11A674) granted by the Court. It is ordered that the judgment of the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, case No. 2:11-cv-0989, entered January 3, 2012, and amended January 4, 2012, is stayed pending the timely filing and disposition of an appeal to this Court.|
|Mar 27 2012||Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due April 30, 2012)|
|Apr 24 2012||Order extending time to file response to jurisdictional statement to and including May 25, 2012.|
|May 23 2012||Waiver of right of appellee Thornton Cooper to respond filed.|
|May 25 2012||Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Jefferson County Commission, et al.|
|Jun 5 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 21, 2012.|
|Jun 5 2012||Reply of appellant Natalie E. Tennant, West Virginia Secretary of State, et al., Appellants filed. (Distributed)|
|Sep 17 2012||DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 24, 2012.|
|Sep 25 2012||Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Opinion per curiam. (Detached Opinion)|
|Oct 29 2012||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.