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. 

Plaintiff moves the Court for entry of an Order granting summary judgment to Plaintiff. In particular, Plaintiff moves for summary judgment that Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, are unconstitutional. Plaintiff further requests that the Court issue a permanent injunction against Defendant Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr., enjoining the enforcement of Section 4(b) and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Plaintiff files a Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a Statement of Material Facts, the Declaration of Frank C. Ellis, Jr., a Proposed Order, and Exhibits in support of this Motion. Plaintiff also requests oral argument on this Motion.

Affidavit of Frank Ellis in support of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment. 

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.