October Term 2011 · Docket 11-713

Can Texas use a court-drawn map before federal approval?

Texas wants to use a judicial map. Opponents say federal law forbids it.

Official caption
Perry v. Perez
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — 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.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Texas claims the lower court lost sight of first principles.

    Opponents claim Texas inverts the federal approval burden.

    questions_asked_by_justices

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Texas seeks to use a court-drawn map. Opponents argue federal law blocks this action.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on January 9, 2012.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Texas wants to use the court-drawn map immediately.

Opponents want to block the map until approval.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Texas argues the lower court ignored key legal principles.

Opponents argue Texas inverts the federal approval burden.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Ginsburg asked how this case differs from prior plans.

Justice Alito asked what happens if neither map works.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines when states can use new maps. It shapes federal oversight of voting rights.

Official sources for this section

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 Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON