League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006)
Primary Holding
The Supreme Court held that claims of partisan gerrymandering are non-justiciable under the Constitution, meaning that federal courts do not have the authority to adjudicate such claims, while also affirming that certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act may still apply to specific districts.
In the case of League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the Supreme Court decided that claims about unfair political map-making (called partisan gerrymandering) can't be settled in federal courts. This is important because it means that if you believe the way voting districts are drawn is unfair to your political party, you may not have a legal way to challenge it in court. However, the ruling also confirmed that some protections under the Voting Rights Act still apply, which helps ensure that minority voters are not unfairly treated. This case is relevant if you feel your voting rights are being impacted by how district lines are drawn, especially if you belong to a minority group.
AI-generated plain-language summary to help you understand this case
In League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, the underlying dispute arose from the Texas State Legislature's 2003 redistricting plan, which established new district lines for the 32 congressional seats Texas holds in the United States House of Representatives. The appellants, including the League of United Latin American Citizens and other groups, argued that the new districting plan constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. They contended that the redistricting process improperly considered race and political affiliation, infringing upon their rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case reached the Supreme Court after a series of legal proceedings in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, where a three-judge panel initially ruled in favor of the defendants in 2004. The Supreme Court vacated that decision and remanded for further consideration in light of the precedent set by Vieth v. Jubelirer. Upon reexamination, the District Court again ruled for the defendants in a second opinion issued in 2005, prompting the appellants to appeal to the Supreme Court, which noted probable jurisdiction over the case. The background context of this case includes the political landscape of Texas, where redistricting has been a contentious issue, often reflecting the state's demographic shifts and political dynamics. The three-judge panel that heard the case brought significant expertise, as two of its members had previously participated in the redistricting process that the 2003 plan replaced. This familiarity with Texas's history and geography was crucial in evaluating the claims of gerrymandering and potential violations of voting rights.
Whether the Texas congressional redistricting plan enacted in 2003 constitutes an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and violates §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as well as the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The judgment is affirmed.
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Decision Date
- March 1, 2006
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Case Type
- landmark
- Majority Author
- Kennedy
- Damages Awarded
- N/A
- Data Quality
- high
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Rooker-Feldman doctrine does not bar federal jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers challenging state-court judgments rendered before the federal proceedings commenced.
Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006)
Consumer LostThe Supreme Court vacated the order of the Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the election procedures implemented under Proposition 200, which required proof of citizenship and identification for voting, were precleared under the Voting Rights Act and did not necessarily disenfranchise qualified voters.
Clingman v. Beaver, 544 U.S. 581 (2005)
Consumer LostOklahoma's semiclosed primary system, which allows only registered party members and Independents to vote in a party's primary, does not violate the First Amendment right to freedom of political association. States have broad authority to regulate the manner of elections, including the structure of their primary systems.
Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. v. Federal Election Comm'n, 546 U.S. 410 (2006)
Consumer WonThe Supreme Court held that the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act's prohibition on electioneering communications can be subject to as-applied constitutional challenges, allowing organizations like Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc. to argue that specific communications should not be classified as electioneering based on their content and context.