Filter by Type
Filter by Issue Area
Filter by Document Type
Filter by Case/Action Status
Order granting motion for preliminary injunction.
On May 24, 2020, the Court issued its Opinion on the Merits following the historic 8-day trial in Jones v. DeSantis. The Court found that Florida’s “pay-to-vote” system violates the Constitution as applied to all individuals who genuinely cannot pay their legal financial obligations as a condition of voting. The opinion further held that the conditioning of voting rights restoration on the payment of court costs and fees is an illegal poll tax that violates the 24th Amendment, and that Florida’s voter registration forms violate the National Voter Registration Act. The Court established a new procedure for Floridians with past felony convictions to determine their eligibility to register and vote.
This decision applies not only to the named plaintiffs in the lawsuit, but to the entire plaintiff class, represented by CLC.
The 11th Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision in Florida’s case on fines and fees, upholding the preliminary injunction which prevents the state from preventing the plaintiffs from voting based solely on their genuine inability to pay legal financial obligations.
U.S. District Judge Steve Jones issued a ruling denying CLC and Fair Fight Action’s request for a preliminary injunction to halt Georgia’s voter purge.
On December 19, 2019, a judge from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio Eastern Division issued an order denying stay.
The district court in Alabama ruled on CLC’s supplemental complaint in an order entered on Dec. 3, 2019. The judge has allowed CLC to proceed to trial on all major claims.
On October 18, 2019, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida Tallahassee Division issued an order denying the motion to dismiss or abstain and granting a preliminary injunction.
Voters Not Politicians' motion to intervene was granted in the Daunt v. Benson case by the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan.
The court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and motion for class certification. The Court enjoined the State of Ohio from treating the class of late-jailed voters differently from late-hospitalized voters for purposes of absentee voting, and directed the Ohio Secretary of State and County Boards of Election to accept applications for absentee ballots from late-jailed voters that are properly delivered by 3:00 pm on Election Day.
Judge Aleta A. Trauger for the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, issued a decision denying the State of Tennessee’s request to dismiss a legal challenge to a new state law that would restrict and penalize voter registration efforts.
Opinion issued by the three-judge panel, and filed by Circuit Judge Tatel, denying the state's request for a declaratory judgment.
Districts 5 and 10 were found to be drawn in contravention of the constituional madates of Article III, Section 20, thus making the redistricting map unconsitituional as drawn.
Today, the Court issued this judgment that grants the plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and denies the defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment. This ensures that Maryland will undergo redistricting reform.
Today, the Court issued this opinion from Judge Niemeyer, Judge Bredar, and Judge Russell. This opinion was issued in conjunction with a judgment that directed Maryland to institute redistricting reform.
The U.S. Supreme Court upheld a January 15 opinion by U.S. District Judge Jesse Furman finding that Secretary Ross lied about his reasons for adding the citizenship question to the 2020 Census.
On Thursday, June 27, 2019, the U.S. Supreme Court decided 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.
On May 30, 2019, a unanimous 6th Circuit panel upheld all challenged provisions of Kentucky’s ethics and campaign finance laws. The appellate court found that the provisions barring state legislators from receiving gifts and campaign contributions from state lobbyists were constitutional, and that plaintiffs—one sitting state senator and one legislative candidate—lacked standing to challenge the corresponding restrictions on lobbyists themselves.
The Fifth Circuit ruled against the Plaintiffs in this case challenging the Hattiesburg City Council wards under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Fifth Circuit affirmed a lower court decision, finding that the ward plan adopted after the 2010 census does inhibit African-American voters' opportunity to participate in the electoral process. CLC represented the Plaintiffs on appeal.