Last Updated: November 13, 2012 at 12:58 PM
LaRoque v. Holder/Nix v. Holder
Case Information
Date Filed: April 7, 2010
State: National
Issue: Voting Rights Act
Courts that Heard this Case: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:10-cv-00561); U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (Case 11-5349); U.S. Supreme Court (Case 12-81)
Issue:
Whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1964 exceeds Congress' authority under the Fifth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.
Status:
District Court opinion issued 12/22/11. Court of Appeals vacates opinion of District Court 5/18/12. Petition for certiorari filed 7/23/12. Brief for Respondents opposing certiorari filed 9/24/12.
Supreme Court Documents (Now known as Nix v. Holder)
- Petition for Certiorari
(filed 7/20/12) - Cato Institute Amicus Brief (filed 8/20/12)
- Brief of Intervenor-Respondents' (filed 9/19/12)
- Brief for the Respondents in Opposition (filed 9/24/12)
- Reply Brief for Petitioners (filed 10/9/12)
- Certiorari Denied (filed 11/13/12)
Appellate Court Documents
- Order Setting Submission Schedule (entered 12/28/10)
- Statement of Issues (filed 1/6/11)
- Appellants' Motion to Expedite the Appeal (filed 1/6/11)
- Appellees' Response in Opposition to Motion to Expedite (filed 1/12/11)
- Appellees'/ Intervenors' Response in Opposition to Motion to Expedite (filed 1/12/11)
- Reply in Support of Motion to Expedite (filed 1/13/11)
- Order Setting Briefing Schedule (entered 1/14/11)
- Appellant Brief (filed 2/4/11)
- Clerk's Order Setting Oral Argument (entered 2/7/11)
- Appellee/ Intervenor's Brief (filed 3/7/11)
- Attorney General/ Appellee's Brief (filed 3/7/11)
- Letter from Eric Holder of Additional Authorities (filed 3/9/11)
- Appellant's Reply Brief (filed 3/17/11)
- Amended Certificate as to Parties, Rulings, and Related Cases (filed 4/6/11)
- Per Curiam Order Allocating Oral Argument Time (entered 4/20/11)
- Oral Argument Held (entered 5/6/11)
- Letters Relating to the Prudent-Standing Issue Raised at Oral Argument (filed 6/17/11)
- Judgment (filed 7/08/11)
- Opinion (filed 7/08/11)
- Statement of Issues for Second Appeal (filed 12/28/11)
- Appellants' Unopposed Emergency Motion to Assign Appeal to Merits Panel Hearing Shelby County v. Holder (filed 12/28/11)
- Appellants' Unopposed Emergency Motion to Expedite Appeal and Expand Word Limits for Briefing (filed 12/28/11)
- Order Granting Appellants' Motion to Assign Appeal to Merits Panel Hearing Shelby County v. Holder (filed 1/4/12)
- Brief for Appellants (filed 1/6/12)
- Joint Appendix (filed 1/6/12)
- Attorney General's Section 5 Objections (filed 1/30/12)
- Brief for Intervenors-Appellees (filed 2/13/12)
- Brief for Attorney General as Appellee (filed 2/13/12)
- Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss (filed 2/14/12)
- Appellants' Motion to Govern Future Proceedings (filed 2/14/12)
- Response to Attorney General's Motion to Dismiss as Moot (filed 2/21/12)
- Reply in Support ofMotion to Dismiss (filed 2/22/12)
- Reply Brief for Appellants (filed 2/23/12)
- Letter Regarding Voting Procedures (filed 2/27/12)
- Letter Attaching Copy of Relevant Case (filed 3/20/12)
- Opinion Vacating Judgment of District Court and Dismissing for Lack of Jurisdiction (filed 5/18/12)
- Notice of Petition for Certiorari Filing (filed 7/23/12)
District Court Documents
- Complaint (filed 4/7/10)
- Application for Three-Judge Court (filed 4/7/10)
- Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Three-Judge Court filed by ERIC H. HOLDER, JR (filed 4/21/10)
- Reply in Support of Application for Three-Judge Court (filed 4/29/10)
- Memorandum Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's application for a three-judge court (entered 5/12/10)
- Motion to Dismiss (filed 6/14/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 7/1/10)
- Reply to Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 7/12/10)
- Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Request for Oral Argument (filed 8/18/10)
- Motion to Dismiss (filed 8/25/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/2/10)
- Motion to Stay Proceedings (filed 9/3/10)
- Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Stay Proceedings (filed 9/8/10)
- Reply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (filed 9/13/10)
- Order granting Motion to Stay Proceedings. Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment is stayed pending resolution of the motions to dismiss [Text Only] (entered 9/16/10)
- Letter Requesting Decision on Motions to Dismiss and Offering to Forego Oral Argument (filed 11/9/10)
- Scheduling Order (entered 11/12/10)
- Proceedings before Judge John D. Bates (held on 12/3/10)
- Order Granting Motions to Dismiss (entered 12/16/10)
- Memorandum Opinion/ Order (entered 12/20/10)
- Notice of Appeal (filed 12/21/10)
- Scheduling Order on Remand (filed 7/15/11)
- Answer of United States (filed 7/22/11)
- Defendants-Intervenors' Renewed Motion to Dismiss (filed 8/1/11)
- Defendants-Intervenors' Response to Plaintiffs' Statement of Material Facts (filed 8/1/11)
- Defendants-Intervenors' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/1/11)
- Summary Judgment Motion of U.S. (filed 8/1/11)
- Plaintiffs' Reply and Memorandum in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/15/11)
- Defendants-Intervenors' Reply in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (filed 8/25/11)
- Reply of U.S. in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Summary Judgment Motion (filed 8/25/11)
- Notice of U.S. Regarding Consent Decrees (filed 9/9/11)
- Notice of U.S. Regarding Arizona v. Holder (filed 9/14/11)
- Plaintiff's Notice Regarding Shelby County v. Holder (filed 10/7/11)
- Brief of Defendants-Intervenors on Mootness (filed 12/9/11)
- Brief of U.S. Regarding Mootness (filed 12/13/11)
- Plaintiffs' Brief Regarding Mootness (filed 12/13/11)
- Opinion Granting Summary Judgment in Favor of U.S. and Defendants-Intervenors (filed 12/22/11)
- Order Granting Summary Judgment (filed 12/22/11)
- Notice of Appeal (filed 12/22/11)
- Transmission of Notice of Appeal (filed 12/23/11)
Commentary
Arizona: Voter Registration and the Road Ahead
Justin Levitt
June arrived with two election law cases at the Supreme Court. One is still pending: a highly anticipated decision on section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The other, more frequently overlooked, was decided yesterday. And there are some quirks of the opinion that seem to depart from the swiftly congealing conventional wisdom that the states might actually have "won," and now need only run out the clock.
more commentary...