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

 

 

Commentary

Edward B. Foley

A Special Master for the Cohen Case?

Edward B. Foley

There should be a strong presumption against special treatment just because the president is involved. 

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Friday round-up

A blog post written by Professor Edward Foley for ElectionLaw@Moritz about the U.S. Supreme Court case Benisek v. Lamone was requoted in SCOTUSblog. 

 

“[There] are reasons to be skeptical, at least early in the stages of the intellectual inquiry, that there would be a single ‘grand unified theory of partisan gerrymandering’ under the U.S. Constitution,” Foley writes. 


more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal Court Finds Unconstitutional Partisan Gerrymandering in North Carolina

A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina released a lengthy opinion Tuesday finding that North Carolina\'s 2016 Congressional Redistricting Plan was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case is Common Cause v. Rucho.

more info & analysis...