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

The Electoral Fix We Really Need

Edward B. Foley

The Electoral College winner should be the majority choice in each state that counts towards that Electoral College victory.

more commentary...

In the News

Edward B. Foley

Anti-Trumpersí Most Futile Effort Yet to Stop Trump from Being Sworn In

Professor Edward Foley was quoted in Law Newz about efforts to persuade Chief Justice John Roberts to decline conducting Donald Trump’s Oath of Office on Inauguration Day. Even though the U.S. Constitution requires the President to take an oath of office, the the Chief Justice is not required to administer it. It is unlikely that such attempts will prevent Trump from being sworn in, Foley said.

“I think the main point is that the oath doesn’t need to be administered by the Chief Justice,” he said. “After Kennedy’s assassination, a federal district judge in Texas administered the oath to Johnson.”
 

more EL@M in the news...

Info & Analysis

Federal District Court Panel Finds Unconstitutional Gerrymandering in Alabama

In an opinion released today, a three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Alabama found unconstitutional gerrymandering in 12 Alabama districts. In a separate concurring and dissenting opinion, one judge on the panel would have found more districts unconstitutionally drawn. The case is Alabama Democratic Conference v. Alabama.

more info & analysis...