SCOTUS Takes Up 2 Partisan Gerrymandering Cases
At its Friday conference, the high court decided it will hear North Carolina Republican legislators' appeal of a 2018 three-judge ruling that found partisan gerrymandering used to corral the majority of Democratic voters in just three districts in 2016 was unconstitutional.
January 04, 2019 at 05:38 PM
3 minute read
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday decided to hear two partisan gerrymandering cases: a North Carolina case spearheaded by Atlanta attorney Emmet Bondurant and the Maryland case that inspired it.
At its Friday conference, the high court decided it will hear North Carolina Republican legislators' appeal of a 2018 three-judge ruling that found partisan gerrymandering used to corral the majority of Democratic voters in just three districts in 2016 was unconstitutional. The case, Rucho v. Common Cause, was originally filed in 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Bondurant, lead counsel for Common Cause, is a founding partner of Atlanta's Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, and a 50-year veteran of legal voting rights battles.
The North Carolina Department of Justice and a team of attorneys at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart headed by Thomas Farr, whose controversial nomination to the federal bench was defeated last month, represent the Republican state legislators who are defendants in the case. Farr could not be reached for comment.
The high court also agreed to hear Lamone v. Benisek, a Maryland case making its third appearance before the high court that challenges Democratic legislators' redistricting in that state. The case, originally known as Shapiro v. McManus, was first filed pro se in 2013 by Maryland engineer Stephen Shapiro, a Common Cause volunteer.
After initially losing in the lower courts, Shapiro joined forces with Michael Kimberly, now a Mayer Brown partner in Washington, D.C., who successfully argued the case when it was first heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Bondurant found the centerpiece of the North Carolina litigation tucked away in Shapiro's original complaint, an argument first offered by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2004 that partisan gerrymandering should be considered a violation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court scheduled both cases for oral arguments in March, although a specific date has not yet been set.
“Whether it is Democrats or Republicans manipulating the election maps, gerrymanders cheat voters out of true representation,” Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn said Friday. “The Supreme Court has the opportunity to set a clear standard that will restore a meaningful vote to millions of Americans disenfranchised by gerrymanders in Maryland, North Carolina and across the country.”
Kimberly said that when the Supreme Court heard a Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford, and the Lamone case for the second time last year, “Everyone was anticipating they would finally do something on partisan gerrymandering.” But, he added, “They ducked the tough issues last time. I don't think they will do that this time. I think these two cases will have significant implications for the way that redistricting is conducted going forward if we prevail.”
Read more:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllRead the Document: 'Google Must Divest Chrome,' DOJ Says, Proposing Remedies in Search Monopoly Case
3 minute readAmir Ali, MacArthur Justice Center Director, Confirmed to DC District Court
From ‘Deep Sadness’ to Little Concern, Gaetz’s Nomination Draws Sharp Reaction From Lawyers
7 minute readConservative Boutiques That Backed Trump Reap Their Rewards
Trending Stories
- 1Attorney Responds to Outten & Golden Managing Partner's Letter on Dropped Client
- 2Attracted to Thompson Hine's Fee Flexibility, Morgan Lewis Litigator Switches Firms in Chicago
- 3Phila. Attorney Hit With 5-Year Suspension for Mismanaging Firm and Mishandling Cases
- 4Simpson Thacher Replenishes London Ranks With Latest Linklaters Defection
- 5Holland & Knight, Akin, Crowell, Barnes and Day Pitney Add to DC Practices
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250