Amicus brief by the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund in support of Appellees. Amici argue that the judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia should be affirmed. 

Amicus brief by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and the LCCR Education Fund et al. in support of Appellees. Amici argue that the judgment of the District Court should be affirmed.

Amicus brief filed by the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law as in support of Appellees. Amicus argues that the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia should be affirmed.  

Amicus brief filed by the Civil Rights Clinic at Howard University School of Law in support of Appellees and Intervenor-Appellees. Amicus argues that the Court uphold the decision of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

Amicus brief filed by the Campaign Legal Center on behalf of former Republican Officeholders in Support of Appellees. It is argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Amicus brief for the Texas State Conference of NAACP Branches, Austin Branch of the NAACP, and Nathaniel Lesane. Amici argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Brief on behalf of the Federal Appellee. It is argued that the judgment of the district court should be affirmed.

Amicus brief by Appellee Travis County. Amicus argues that the district court judgment should be affirmed.

Amicus brief by Mountain States Legal Foundation in support of Appellant. Amicus argues that the Court’s thorough and thoughtful test in Boerne for determining the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress pursuant to its remedial Enforcement Clause powers serves as the basis for this Court’s ruling. Thus, the Court should reverse the district court panel’s decision and hold Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, as reenacted in 2006, unconstitutional in excess of Congress’s powers under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.

Amicus brief by Governor Riley of Alabama in support of neither party. Governor Riley argues that the Court should consider §5’s burden on a fully-covered state, as well as the changes in Alabama’s government and voting record since 1965.

Amicus brief field by Nathaniel Persily, Stephen Ansolabehere, and Charles Stewart III on behalf of neither party. Amici find that by their studies and data, the data from this historic election do not provide evidence of substantial change in the geography of racially differential voting patterns. 

Brief on behalf of the Appellant. The questions presented are whether §4(a) of the Voting Rights Act, which permits “political subdivisions” of a State covered by §5’s requirement that certain jurisdictions preclear changes affecting voting with the federal government to bail out of §5 coverage if they can establish a ten-year history of compliance with the VRA, must be available to any political subunit of a covered State when the Court’s precedent requires “political subdivision” to be given its ordinary meaning throughout most of the VRA and no statutory text abrogates that interpretation with respect to §4(a); and whether, under the Court’s consistent jurisprudence requiring that remedial legislation be congruent and proportional to substantive constitutional guarantees, the 2006 enactment of the §5 preclearance requirement can be applied as a valid exercise of Congress’s remedial powers under the Reconstruction Amendments when that enactment was founded on a congressional record demonstrating no evidence of a persisting pattern of attempts to evade court enforcement of voting-rights guarantees in jurisdictions covered only on the basis of data 35 or more years old, or even when considered under a purportedly less stringent rational-basis standard. It is argued that  the Court should reverse the judgment of the district court and render judgment that the district is entitled to use the bailout procedure or, in the alternative, that §5 cannot be constitutionally applied to the district.

The one-day agenda for the Voting Rights Institute's training session in New York, held by the CLC and ACS. 

The American Constitution Society and the Campaign Legal Center's announcement for a half-day CLE training program, taught by some of the most respected voting rights practitioners in the country. The training armed attendees with the tools and tips necessary to become active members of the voting rights bar, and provided an opportunity for new and returning members of the voting rights community to meet and strategize about the challenges to come. 

D.C. District Court’s memorndum opinion and order. The Court orders that the government's request for discovery pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) is denied; and it is further ordered that the government and defendant-intervenors shall file an opposition to Shelby County's motion for summary judgment by not later than November 15, 2010; Shelby County may file a reply in support of its motion by not later than December 15, 2010.

Shelby County’s reply memo in opposition of discovery and requesting defendant to brief its opposition to summary judgment. 

Memorandum in support of the Attorney General’s opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. The Attorney General requests that the Court deny the Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment as premature. Alternatively, the Court should stay its consideration of the Plaintiff’s motion and permit the Attorney General to take discovery and ascertain facts essential to oppose the Plaintiff’s Summary Judgment Motion.

Declaration of Richard Delheim in opposition to plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment.

Attorney General’s consolidated response to Motions to Intervene. The Attorney General does not oppose permissive intervention under Rule 24(b)(1). Because there is no statute that confers a right to intervene, and because there is no indication that the Attorney General will not adequately represent the interests of movant-intervenors in this litigation, the conditions are not met for intervention as of right under Rules 24(a)(1) or 24(a)(2).

NAACP/ACLU’s motion for leave to intervene as a defendant.