__ U.S. __ (2017), 16-833, North Carolina v. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP
|Citation:||__ U.S. __, 137 S.Ct. 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220, 85 U.S.L.W. 3540, 85 U.S.L.W. 3537, 85 U.S.L.W. 3541|
|Party Name:||North Carolina, et al., Petitioners v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al|
|Judge Panel:||Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch. Statement of Chief Justice Roberts respecting the denial of certiorari.|
|Case Date:||May 15, 2017|
|Court:||United States Supreme Court|
ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP v. McCrory, 831 F.3d 204, (4th Cir. N.C., 2016)
Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.
Statement of Chief Justice Roberts respecting the denial of certiorari.
In 2013, the North Carolina Legislature enacted Session Law 2013-381 (SL 2013-381). This omnibus law contained measures (1) requiring voters to present an approved form of photo identification before casting a valid ballot; (2) reducing the early voting period from 17 to 10 days; (3) eliminating out-of-precinct voting; (4) eliminating same-day registration and voting; and (5) eliminating pre-registration [198 L.Ed.2d 221] by 16-year-olds. The United States and private plaintiffs (Plaintiffs) sued in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, claiming that those measures had a discriminatory effect in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, and had been motivated by discriminatory intent in violation of § 2, as well as the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The District Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims after trial. In a nearly 500-page opinion, that court determined that Plaintiffs had failed to establish either discriminatory impact or intent. North Carolina State Conference of NAACP v. McCrory, 182 F.Supp.3d 320 (2016).
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that " the North Carolina General Assembly enacted the challenged provisions of the law with discriminatory intent." 831 F.3d 204, 215 (2016). As to remedy, the Court of Appeals enjoined all the challenged provisions. Judge Motz wrote for the court, except as to one part of the opinion from which she dissented. The State of North Carolina, its then-Governor, the State Board of Elections, and members of the Board in their official capacities petitioned for certiorari, asking this Court to review the Fourth Circuit's conclusion that SL 2013-381 was enacted...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP