October Term 2015 · Docket 14-990
Can a single judge dismiss a redistricting suit?
the sides that brought the case argue a single judge lacks authority to dismiss redistricting cases. the opposing sides claim Congress granted that power in 1976.
Verified source milestones
- — 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. Kimberly argued the statute plainly requires a three-judge panel.
Mr. Sullivan argued Congress gave single judges dismissal power in 1976.
questions_asked_by_justices
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The case tests whether one district judge can dismiss a challenge to congressional district maps. the sides that brought the case seek a three-judge panel. the opposing sides want a single judge to decide the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2015.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want a three-judge panel to hear the case.
the opposing sides want a single judge to dismiss the case.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue the statute mandates a three-judge panel for map challenges.
the opposing sides argue Congress authorized single judges to dismiss these cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
What the justices asked
Chief Justice Roberts asked how to handle precedents that seem outdated.
Justice Kennedy asked if a single judge can dismiss long-standing cases.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
Why it matters
This dispute defines who decides redistricting lawsuits. It shapes the speed and cost of challenging district maps. It affects how citizens seek fair representation.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
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 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 40-48 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 40-48
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 16-16 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 16-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 18-18 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 18-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 22-26 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 22-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 42-44 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 42-44
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 24-38 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 24-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 40-40 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 40-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 10-12 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 10-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-30 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-30
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 38-40 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 38-40
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 10-16 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 10-16
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 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 22, lines 32-6 — Transcript, file page 22, lines 32-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-38 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-38
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.