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
Gerrymandering as Viewpoint Discrimination: A "Functional Equivalence" Test
Edward B. Foley
A First Amendment test for identifying when a map is functionally equivalent to a facially discriminatory statute.
more commentary...