(Click here for a summary of which maps were struck/upheld in the 2010 cycle.)
(Click here for a summary of which maps were struck/upheld in the 2000 cycle.)
(Click for individual cases in the 2000, 1990, 1980 cycles.)
- U.S. Supreme
District of Columbia
Redistricting status map
|All suits resolved|
Note: Under federal law, a three-judge federal trial court hears constitutional challenges to federal or state legislative districts or requests for preclearance, and these decisions are appealed directly to the U.S. Supreme Court. Federal appellate courts therefore tend to get involved only when there is no constitutional challenge or judicial preclearance request, or when only local districts are challenged.
- District of Columbia
Shelby County v. Holder, No. 1:10-cv-00651 (D.D.C.) & No. 11-5256 (D.C. Cir.) & No. 12-96 (S. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the constitutionality of section 4(b) and section 5 (the coverage formula and preclearance provisions) of the Voting Rights Act.
- District court
- Complaint (Apr. 27, 2010).
- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (June 8).
- U.S. opposition (June 22), reply (July 1).
- Intervenor Pierson et al. opposition (Sept. 8), reply (Sept. 10).
- Cross-motions for summary judgment by:
- United States (Nov. 15), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Jan. 14, 2011).
- Intervenor Cunningham et al. (LDF) (Nov. 15), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Jan. 14).
- Intervenor Harris (Lawyers' Comm.) (Nov. 15), opp. (Dec. 13).
- Intervenor Pierson et al. (ACLU) (Nov. 6), opp. (Dec. 13), reply (Jan. 14).
- Amicus brief by Constitutional Accountability Center (Nov. 22).
- Responses to court order for briefing on rational basis: (Feb. 16, 2011)
- Plaintiffs, U.S., Intervenor Harris, Intervenors Cunningham and Pierson.
- Grant of summary judgment for defendants (Sept. 21).
- Court of Appeals
- Shelby County brief, appendix (Nov. 1).
- Briefs of DOJ (Dec. 1), intervenors Cunningham et al. (Dec. 9).
- Amicus briefs in support of Shelby County
- Alabama, Arizona and Georgia, Mountain States Legal Found. (Nov. 8).
- Amicus briefs in support of appellees
- NYLS Racial Justice Project (Dec. 7), Const. Accountability Center (Dec. 8).
- New York, Mississippi, and California (Dec. 9).
- Shelby County reply (Dec. 15).
- Opinion affirming trial court (May 18).
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Petition for certiorari (July 20).
- Amicus briefs supporting cert. by:
- Alaska, Arizona et al. (Aug. 23), Cato Inst. (Aug. 20), Ex-DOJ (Aug. 23).
- Mountain States Legal Found., Nat'l Black Chamber of Comm. (Aug. 23).
- Pacific Legal Foundation et al. (Aug. 23).
- Briefs opposing cert. by DOJ, intervenors (Sept. 24).
- Grant of certiorari (Nov. 9).
- Merits brief by Shelby County, joint appendix (Dec. 26, 2012).
- Merits brief by United States (Jan. 25, 2013).
- Merits briefs by intervenors: (Jan. 25)
- Cunningham (NAACP LDF), Harris (Lawyers' Comm.), Pierson (ACLU).
- Petitioner's reply brief (Feb. 19).
- Amicus briefs in support of petitioner:
- Alabama, Alaska, Am. Unity Legal Defense Fund, Arizona et al. (Jan. 2).
- Cato Inst., Ctr. for Const. Jurisprudence, Former Gov't Officials (Jan. 2).
- Judicial Educ. Project, Justice & Freedom Fund (Dec. 28).
- Landmark Legal Found., Lincoln Found. et al. (Jan. 2).
- Mountain States Legal Found., Nat'l Black Chamber of Commerce (Dec. 28).
- Nix et al. (Dec. 27), Pacific Legal Found. et al., Project 21 (Jan. 2).
- Reason Found., Southeastern Legal Found., Texas (Jan. 2).
- Amicus briefs in support of neither party:
- Merced County (Jan. 2).
- Amicus briefs in support of respondent:
- Ala. Leg. Black Caucus et al., Alaska Fed. of Natives et al. (Feb. 1).
- Amer. Bar Ass'n, Avila et al., Brennan Center, Chin et al. (Feb. 1).
- Con Law scholars, Engstrom et al. (Feb. 1), Florida A&M (Jan. 23).
- Fudge et al., Historians and social scientists, Hutto et al. (Feb. 1).
- Jurisdictions that have bailed out, Katz et al. (Feb. 1).
- Leadership Conf. on Civil & Human Rights, Lewis, Nat'l Bar Ass'n (Feb. 1).
- Nat'l Latino orgs., Nat'l Lawyers Guild, Navajo Nation et al. (Feb. 1).
- New York City et al., New York State et al., Poli. sci. and law profs. (Feb. 1).
- Reid, Sect. 5 Litigation Intervenors, Sensenbrenner et al. (Feb. 1).
- Thornburgh et al., Veterans of MS Civil Rights Movement (Feb. 1).
- Opinion striking down preclearance coverage formula (June 25, 2013). « NEW
The latest: On Sept. 21, 2011, the trial court upheld sections 4(b) and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court applied a heightened standard of review -- requiring the preclearance portion of the Act to be "congruent and proportional" to demonstrated constitutional violations. Despite the heightened standard, the court found the preclearance remedy and coverage formula to be congruent and proportional to the constitutional harm demonstrated in the Congressional record established for the provisions' 2006 re-enactment. On appeal, the DC Circuit affirmed. On June 25, 2013, the Supreme Court reversed, finding the formula for determining which jurisdictions must seek preclearance to rely insufficiently on current conditions. With the coverage formula struck down, no jurisdiction will be subject to a preclearance requirement unless and until Congress passes a substitute.
Nix v. Holder (was Laroque v. Holder), No. 1:10-cv-00561 (D.D.C.) & No. 11-5349 (D.C. Cir.) & No. 12-81 (S. Ct.): a challenge in federal court to the constitutionality of section 5 (the preclearance provisions) of the Voting Rights Act.
- Trial Court (I)
- Complaint (Apr. 7, 2010).
- DoJ motion to dismiss (June 14), opposition (July 1), reply (July 2).
- Intervenor-deft. motion to dismiss (Aug. 25), opposition (Sept. 2), reply (Sept. 13).
- Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment (Aug. 18, 2010).
- DoJ opposition (Aug. 1, 2011), Intervenor opposition (Aug. 25), reply (Aug. 15).
- Opinion granting motion to dismiss (Dec. 20).
- Court of appeals (I)
- Briefs on appeal: Appellant (Feb. 4, 2011), DoJ (Mar. 7), Intervenor appellee (Mar. 7).
- Appellate opinion, reversing and vacating motion to dismiss (July 8).
- Trial Court (II)
- Renewed intervenor-defendant motion to dismiss (Aug. 1), opposition (Aug. 15).
- DoJ cross-motion for summary judgment (Aug. 1).
- opposition (Aug. 15), reply (Aug. 25).
- Intervenor cross-motion for summary judgment (Aug. 1), supplement (Aug. 25).
- Plaintiffs' brief regarding mootness (Dec. 9).
- Replies of DoJ, defendant-intervenors (Dec. 13).
- Opinion granting DoJ motion for summary judgment (Dec. 22).
- Court of appeals (II)
- Laroque brief (and appendix) (Jan. 6, 2012).
- DOJ brief, Intervenors' brief (Feb. 13).
- Reply (Feb. 23).
- DoJ letter withdrawing objection to preclearance (Feb. 10).
- Motion to dismiss (Feb. 14), response (Feb. 21), reply (Feb. 22).
- Opinion vacating and remanding for dismissal (May 18).
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Petition for certiorari (July 20, 2012).
- Amicus brief by Cato Institute (Aug. 20).
- Brief of intervenor-respondents (Sept. 19).
- Reply by petitioners (Oct. 9).
- Petition for certiorari denied (Nov. 13).
The latest: On December 22, the court found section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, including the 2006 Amendments to the Act, to be constitutionally justified, and granted the DoJ's motion for summary judgment. The case was appealed, to the same panel deciding the Shelby County case, above. On Feb. 10, the DoJ withdrew its objection to preclearance of Kinston's change to nonpartisan elections (the objection underlying this constitutional challenge), and on Feb. 14, moved to dismiss the case. The court agreed that the case was moot, and on May 18, vacated the trial court opinion and remanded with instructions to dismiss the case. A petition for certiorari was denied on November 13, 2012.