Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief. Plaintiff Shelby County requests that the Court declare Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the VRA unconstitutional; issue a permanent injunction against Defendant Attorney General Eric Holder, enjoining the enforcement of Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the VRA; award Plaintiff its reasonable attorneys' fees and costs for bringing this action; and order such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. 

Petitioner's merits brief for the Supreme Court. The question presented is whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

Opinion of the three-judge court, with the Court Opinion filed by Circuit Judge Kavanaugh. The Court concludes that the new South Carolina law does not have a discriminatory retrogressive effect, as compared to the benchmark of South Carolina’s pre-existing law. They also conclude that Act R54 was not enacted for a discriminatory purpose.

Solicitor General's opposition to the petition for certiorari. The question presented is whether Congress acted within its authority to enforce the constitutional prohibition against discrimination in voting when it reauthorized Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 42 U.S.C. 1973c (Section 5), in 2006, on the basis of an extensive record demonstrating that, despite considerable progress under Section 5’s remedial framework, discrimination against minority voters continues to be a serious problem in covered jurisdictions and that Section 5 remains a valuable tool in preventing, remedying, and deterring such discrimination.

Defendant-Intervenors’ reply to the State’s response to Intervenors’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

United States' reply to South Carolina's responses to its proposed findings and conclusions. For the reasons outlined in the document, the United States argues that the Court should deny preclearance of Act R54.

South Carolina’s reply in support of its proposed findings fact and conclusions of law. South Carolin argues that for the reasons set forth in the document, and for the reasons set forth in the State proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, the Court should preclear R54 under VRA § 5, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

United States’ responses to South Carolina’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that South Carolina’s request for judicial preclearance of Act R54 should be denied.

South Carolina’s reply in support of its proposed findings fact and conclusions of law. For the reasons set forth in the document, and for the reasons set forth in the State proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law, South Carolina concludes the Court should preclear R54 under VRA § 5, as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

Defendant-Intervenors' proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. Defendat-Intervenor concludes that South Carolina has failed to carry its burden as to both discriminatory effect and purpose, and preclearance must be denied.

South Carolina’s proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. South Carolina argues that the Court should preclear Sections 4, 5, 7, and 8 of Act R54 under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1973c.

United States’ proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The United States argue that because South Carolina cannot meet its required burden under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act to show that these changes will not have a discriminatory effect and were not enacted with any discriminatory purpose, the United States respectfully requests that the Court deny the state’s request for judicial preclearance of R54.

A petition for a writ of certiorari. The question presented is whether Congress’ decision in 2006 to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act under the pre-existing coverage formula of Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act exceeded its authority under the Fifteenth Amendment and thus violated the Tenth Amendment and Article IV of the United States Constitution.

The morning transcript for July 10, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The afternoon transcript for July 10, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The afternoon transcript for July 12, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.

The morning transcript for July 12, 2012, before Circuit Judge Tatel, and District Judges Collyer and Wilkins.