OSU Navigation Bar

Election Law @ Moritz Home Page

Election Law @ Moritz

Election Law @ Moritz


Litigation

 

Texas v. United States

Case Information

Date Filed: July 19, 2011
State: Texas
Issue: Redistricting
Courts that Heard this Case: United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Case 1:11-cv-01303); United States Supreme Court (Case 12-496); United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (Case 14-5151)

Issue:

Whether Texas' Recently Enacted Redistricting Plans Violate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Status:

Trial commenced 1/17/12. Post-trial briefs filed 2/6/12 and 2/7/12. Opinion issued 8/28/12. Notice of appeal to U.S. Supreme Court filed 8/31/12. Jurisdictional statement filed 10/19/12. Mexican-American Legislative Caucus' Motion to Affirm filed 12/6/12. United States' Motion to Affirm in Part filed 12/7/12. Davis' Motion to Affirm filed 12/7/12. Texas Latino Redistricting Task Force's Motion to Affirm filed 12/7/12. Texas' Reply Brief filed 12/13/12. Judgment Vacated and Remanded in light of Shelby County v. Holder filed 6/27/13. Memorandum and Order of Dismissal filed 12/3/13. Order Dissolving Three-Judge District Court on 1/22/14. Order filed 6/18/14. Notice of Appeal filed 6/23/14. Plaintiffs' Motion to Stay filed 6/23/14. Order granting Motion to stay filed 6/24/14. Texas' opening Court of Appeals brief filed 12/15/14. Joint appendix filed 12/15/14. Joint Appellee Brief filed 1/14/15. Appellant Reply Brief filed 1/28/15. Oral argument heard 4/21/15. Opinion affirming district court filed 8/18/15.

See also Davis v. Perry and Perez v. Texas

District Court Documents

Court of Appeals Documents

Supreme Court Documents

 

 

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Symposium: Wechsler, history and gerrymandering

A post written by Professor Edward Foley was published on SCOTUSblog.

“When we look back on the half-century since Sullivan, we see a legacy in which the Supreme Court itself contributed to America’s growth as a people committed to political freedom. Sullivan is entrenched as precedent precisely because it is now indelibly part of our national self-understanding," Foley writes. "For Gill to be successful like Sullivan, it too will need to become woven into our sense of America as a democracy. The way for Gill to accomplish this is to declare: 'Although the original Gerry-mander was never tested in this Court, the attack on its validity has carried the day in the court of history.' If the court says this, then 50 years from now—thanks in large part to Gill itself—we may have matured into the genuinely representative democracy we are still striving to be.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a gerrymandering case involving Wisconsin state legislative districts. The court also granted a request by the state to temporarily block the lower court\'s decision until the appeal is resolved. The case is Gill v. Whitford.

more info & analysis...