North Carolina v. N.C. State Conference of the NAACP
| Citation | 198 L.Ed.2d 220,137 S.Ct. 1399 (Mem) |
| Decision Date | 15 May 2017 |
| Docket Number | No. 16–833.,16–833. |
| Parties | NORTH CAROLINA, et al. v. NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONFERENCE OF the NAACP, et al. |
| Court | U.S. Supreme Court |
The petition for a writ of certiorari is 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 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 with discriminatory intent.
In January 2017, a new Governor and state Attorney General assumed office. Shortly after, the new Attorney General moved to dismiss the petition, initially on behalf of only the Governor and the State. A few days later, however, the Attorney General filed a supplemental motion to dismiss on behalf of all named petitioners. The North Carolina General Assembly objected, arguing that North Carolina law does not authorize the state Attorney General to dismiss...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Cooper
...at 219.The bill's proponents sought Supreme Court review, but were denied certiorari. See North Carolina v. N.C. State Conference of NAACP , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220 (2017). Hours after that denial, legislative leaders began "calling for a new law that would incorpora......
-
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
...for certiorari review of a decision holding that same voter-ID law unconstitutional. See North Carolina v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1399, 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220 (2017) (mem.). Whether framed as an argument for collusion or for adversity of interests, the impo......
-
Greater Birmingham Ministries v. Sec'y of State for Ala., 18-10151
...of ... discriminatory intent." 831 F.3d 204, 227 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied sub nom. North Carolina v. N. Carolina State Conference of NAACP , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220 (2017). In McCrory , the North Carolina legislature, immediately after Shelby County , vastly exp......
-
N.C. State Conference of the NAACP v. Berger
...that same voter-ID law unconstitutional, acting on behalf of the incoming Governor. See North Carolina v. N.C. State Conf. of the NAACP , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S. Ct. 1399, 198 L.Ed.2d 220 (2017). Whether framed as an argument for collusion or for adversity of interests, cf. Stuart , 706 F.3d ......
-
Racially Neutral in Form, Racially Discriminatory in Fact: the Implications for Voting Rights of Giving Disproportionate Racial Impact the Constitutional Importance it Deserves
...107. Shelby Cty. v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529, 593 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting).108. 831 F.3d 204 (4th Cir. 2016), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 1399 (2017).109. 570 U.S. 529 (2013).110. N.C. State Conf. of NAACP, 831 F.3d at 214.111. Id. at 227. As the court had noted, id. at 220, the "historic......