Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
In February 2008, the National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) challenged a provision in the Honest Leadership and Open Government Act (HLOGA) that requires a lobbying coalition, such as NAM, to disclose any member organizations of the coalition that fund the coalition’s lobbying activities and...
A bill to help Federal prosecutors and investigators combat public corruption by strengthening and clarifying the law.
Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended in 2006 (hereinafter “Section 5”). Complaint ¶¶ 1-7, 11-37. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 291(b), 2284 and 42 U.S.C. § 1973c(a), as well as the Court’s Local Rule 9.1, Plaintiffs apply for a three-judge court to adjudicate this action. In support of this application, Plaintiffs respectfully submit the following memorandum of points and authorities.
Plaintiffs request that the Court enter a judgment for the Plaintiffs (1) declaring that Section 5 unconstitutionally exceeds Congressional authority; (2) declaring that the Section 5, as amended in 2006, violates the Fifth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, particularly as applied by the Attorney General, both generally and in his specific refusal to permit Kinston’s change to nonpartisan elections; (3) enjoining the Attorney General from enforcing Section 5 against Kinston’s change to nonpartisan elections; (4) enjoining any enforcement of Section 5 against Kinston in the future; and (5) any other relief the Court deems just and proper.
The Defendant requests that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint with prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).
Defendant asks Court to dismiss, arguing that Plaintiffs lack standing to bring their claims and, moreover, that Plaintiffs' claims are not authorized by Section 5, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Defendant, Attorney General of the United States (“United States”), opposes the Plaintiffs’ Application for a Three-Judge Court. Because Congress has not authorized three-judge courts to hear the constitutional claims in this case, the Plaintiffs’ application should be denied.
District Court grants intervention.
It is ordered that plaintiffs' application for a three-judge court is denied.
The Court grants defendant's motion to dismiss case.
Intervenors-Appellees request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Plaintiffs argue that the Defendant-intervenors’ motion to dismiss should be denied.
Intervenors-Appellees respectfully request that the Court affirm the judgment of the District Court.