Oyez, oyez, oyez. It's the day after the first Monday in October.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

IANAL. Pay the $2.

Edith Roberts Editor
Posted Tue, October 3rd, 2017 7:15 am

Tuesday round-up

This morning the court hears oral argument in two cases. The first is Gill v. Whitford, in which the justices will decide whether Wisconsin’s electoral maps are the product of an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. Amy Howe had this blog’s preview. Leonardo Mangat and Douglas Wagner preview the case for Cornell Law School’s Legal Information Institute. Coverage of Whitford comes from Nina Totenberg at NPR and Michael Wines in The New York Times, who reports that a “decisive ruling striking down the Wisconsin Assembly map could invalidate redistricting maps in up to 20 other states,” and from Steven Mazie at The Economist’s Espresso blog. Today’s episode of More Perfect (podcast) features a discussion of Whitford.

In an op-ed for The Washington Post, Cliff Sloan and Michael Waldman maintain that “{f}or those defending partisan gerrymanders, contrary to their sweeping claims, history is not on their side.” In an op-ed at The Hill, Rep. Rod Blum, R-Iowa, points out that “[t]oday’s powerful technology and voter information allows lawmakers to rig and game the system in ways that never before could have been imagined.” Jowei Chen, in an op-ed for Time, explains that his academic research reveals that “the legislature clearly skewed the Wisconsin map to benefit the Republican Party, and the map they came up with is extremely skewed.”

Today’s second argument is in Jennings v. Rodriguez, a challenge to the prolonged detention of immigrants without bond hearings, which the justices scheduled for reargument at the end of October Term 2016. Kevin Johnson had this blog’s preview. Another preview comes from Shelby Garland and Jonathan Kim at Cornell. At Take Care, Leah Litman and Britany Riley argue that “[t]he administration’s position on the ‘solution’ to lengthy immigration detentions—go home— … illustrates how the structure of immigration law allows an aggressive executive branch to render meaningless the few protections that immigration law affords.”
....

Recommended Citation: Edith Roberts, Tuesday round-up, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2017, 7:15 AM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/tuesday-round-up-397/

[mahatmakanejeeves]

1. Argument analysis: Cautious optimism for challengers in Wisconsin redistricting case?

Amy Howe Independent Contractor and Reporter
Posted Tue, October 3rd, 2017 2:13 pm

Argument analysis: Cautious optimism for challengers in Wisconsin redistricting case?

Today may have been only the second day of the Supreme Court’s new term, but it may also prove to be one of the biggest. The justices heard oral argument in Gill v. Whitford, a challenge to the redistricting plan passed by Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2011. A federal court struck down the plan last year, agreeing with the plaintiffs that it violated the Constitution because it was the product of partisan gerrymandering – that is, the practice of purposely drawing district lines to favor one party and put another at a disadvantage. After roughly an hour of oral argument this morning, the justices seemed to agree that partisan gerrymandering is, as Justice Samuel Alito acknowledged, “distasteful.” But there was no apparent agreement about whether courts could or should get involved in policing the practice.
....

This post was originally published at Howe on the Court.

Posted in Gill v. Whitford, Featured, Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Amy Howe, Argument analysis: Cautious optimism for challengers in Wisconsin redistricting case?, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2017, 2:13 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-analysis-cautious-optimism-challengers-wisconsin-redistricting-case/

Andrew Hamm Manager
Posted Tue, October 3rd, 2017 3:31 pm

Argument transcripts
The transcript in Gill v. Whitford is here; the transcript in Jennings v. Rodriguez is here.

Posted in Merits Cases

Recommended Citation: Andrew Hamm, Argument transcripts, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 3, 2017, 3:31 PM), http://www.scotusblog.com/2017/10/argument-transcripts-53/