Supreme Court Insider (sm)

Archive for January 2012

Police Need Search Warrant for GPS Tracking

leave a comment »

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled today that police must obtain a search warrant before using GPS tracking technology on suspects.

Advertisements

Written by Admin

January 23, 2012 at 11:49 am

Posted in Uncategorized

Texas Redistricting Case Sets New Standard for Interim Maps

leave a comment »

In a per curiam opinion, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled today in Perez v. Perry that the interim redistricting maps drawn by a three-judge panel in San Antonio must be vacated (set aside) because they did not reflect the policy judgments and choices in the legislatively approved maps.  Even though the maps for the Texas House of Representatives, Texas Senate, and the U.S. Congress are pending Section 5 preclearance in Washington, D.C., the U.S. Supreme Court said that the three-judge panel should have used the legislative drawn maps as a starting point to draw the interim maps.

The appellees, minority groups challenging the Texas Legislature’s maps, argued that no deference should be given because the maps had not been precleared as required in Upham v. Seamon.  The Supreme Court disagreed.

New interim maps will be drawn that closely resemble the legislative maps, which give Republicans a strong advantage in the Texas House, Texas Senate, and the U.S. Congress.

Written by Admin

January 20, 2012 at 11:46 am

Posted in Uncategorized

U.S. Supreme Court: Lines Matter

leave a comment »

It’s time.

The U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments tomorrow afternoon and decide whether a three-judge panel in San Antonio properly drew interim Texas redistricting maps that comply with federal law and Supreme Court precedents.

The key issue that will be addressed is the level of deference a federal court should give to legislatively crafted plans that were submitted for preclearance  in good faith and are still pending.  The plaintiffs argue that no deference should be given because the maps have not been precleared and thus are legally unforceable.  To give deference would, according to the plaintiffs, allow jurisdictions subject to Section 5 preclearance to delay submitting voting changes or maps for preclearance and then request that any interim remedy include unprecleared changes.

The State of Texas, on the other hand, argues that deference should be given and that the state should not be disadvantaged because the voting changes and maps are awaiting preclearance.

Court observers note that the consolidated Texas redistricting cases may set the foundation for a greater challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

Stay tuned for an update…

Written by Admin

January 8, 2012 at 8:59 pm

Posted in Uncategorized