October Term 2007 · Docket 07-77
Must state courts seek federal approval before striking down redistricting laws?
Alabama argues state courts need no federal approval to invalidate redistricting plans. Opponents claim the Voting Rights Act requires such approval for any voting change.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Mr. Newsom argued that the appeal is timely and the Court has jurisdiction to resolve the merits.
Mr. Shanmugam asserted that the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance for any change in voting practices.
Ms. Karlan cited prior cases to argue that the law was in force and effect.
Mr. Newsom suggested that legislative or administrative changes might not require preclearance under existing dicta.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-23
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests the scope of federal preclearance requirements under the Voting Rights Act. The dispute centers on whether state judicial actions that alter voting maps require prior federal approval.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 24, 2008.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-23
What each side wants
Alabama wants the Court to rule that state courts do not need federal approval to invalidate redistricting laws.
Opponents want the Court to rule that state courts must seek federal approval before any change to voting practices takes effect.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
What each side says
Alabama argues that judicial decisions are not legislative or administrative changes, so they fall outside the preclearance requirement.
Opponents argue that the Voting Rights Act requires preclearance for any change in voting practices, including those made by state courts.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
What the justices asked
Justice Kennedy asked how a state trial judge can rule if the opposing sides win and preclearance is required.
Justice Souter asked if state courts have invalidated redistricting laws on state constitutional grounds and if those opinions were precleared.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-23
Why it matters
This case defines the power of state courts to change voting rules. It determines whether federal approval is needed for judicial redistricting decisions. The outcome shapes the balance of power between state and federal governments in voting rights.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 41-45 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 41-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 7-17 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 7-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 25-29 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 25-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 37-43 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 37-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 31-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 31-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 21-25 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 21-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 3-7 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 3-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 58, lines 43-49 — Transcript, file page 58, lines 43-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 3-5 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 3-5
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 47-13 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 47-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 60, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 60, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 3-9 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 3-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 61, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 61, lines 43-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 17-23 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 17-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 47-7 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 47-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 3-13 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 3-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 43-23 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 43-23
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 27, lines 25-41 — Transcript, file page 27, lines 25-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 19-23 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 19-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 47, lines 45-13 — Transcript, file page 47, lines 45-13
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 47-51 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 47-51
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.