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

Flagging Online Falsehoods

Edward B. Foley

A remedy for foreign disinformation attacks

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Ohio voters may change way Congress lines are drawn

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in the Dayton Daily News about the potential outcomes of several cases before the U.S. Supreme Court that will address partisan gerrymandering.

“One direction is the court basically abandoning any role to try to police excessive partisanship in these maps,” Foley said. “The other fork in the road would take the federal judiciary down the path of being something of a police officer on this issue.”
 

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...