Podcast appearances and mentions of Cooper V Harris

Audio of Parts IV and V of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017) The questions before the Court in this case were whether the lower court erred in determining that North Carolina's new districting plan constituted a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause, whether the claims should have been dismissed under the doctrine of issue preclusion or claim preclusion, and whether the Supreme Court should resolve a disagreement between the differing conclusions reached by the lower court and the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case.   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Audio of Parts I, II, and III of the opinion of the Court in Cooper v. Harris (2017)  The questions before the Court in this case were whether the lower court erred in determining that North Carolina's new districting plan constituted a racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause, whether the claims should have been dismissed under the doctrine of issue preclusion or claim preclusion, and whether the Supreme Court should resolve a disagreement between the differing conclusions reached by the lower court and the North Carolina Supreme Court in this case. So, how did the Court rule in this case in which the conservative Justice Clarence Thomas voted with the liberal justices on the bench? You'll have to listen to find out!   Access this SCOTUS opinion and other essential case information on Oyez. Music by Epidemic Sound

Our jam-packed "breaking news" episode covers some of the biggest stories trending at the moment, including the Equifax breach. First, Closed Arguments returns by tackling a proposal from friend of the show Eli Bosnick, who asks -- in light of Trump's repeal of DACA -- whether we can't just marry off the 800,000 program participants.  We can't; listen and find out why. In the main segment, Andrew walks us through the Equifax data breach, the pending class-action lawsuits, and all of the key legal issues.  He even weighs in on the "chat bot" that some are saying will file your suit for  you! Next, Breakin' Down the Law continues with everything you wanted to know about the Supreme Court's recent gerrymandering decision. Finally, we end with a new (and possibly too-easy!) Thomas Takes the Bar Exam Question #41 about the admissibility of footprint and shoe evidence.  Remember that you can play along with #TTTBE by retweeting our episode Tweet along with your guess.  We'll release the answer on next Tuesday's episode along with our favorite entry! Recent Appearances None.  Have us on your show! Show Notes & Links "Adjustment of status" is governed by 8 U.S.C. § 1255, and sham marriages are prohibited by 8 U.S.C. § 1325(c). This is the Oregon lawsuit filed against Equifax. Class actions are governed by Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Here is a link to Equifax's statement regarding the website TOC issued in response to NY Attorney General Eric Schneiderman's inquiry. We previously discussed political gerrymandering (including the "Wisconsin case") in episode 54, and racial gerrymandering and Cooper v. Harris in episode 72. This is a link to the Supreme Court's one-sentence 5-4 order in Abbott v. Perez staying the lower court's decision, and this is a link to that case, Perez v. Abbott, SA-11-CV-360 (Aug. 15, 2017). Please remember to sign up for the Opening Arguments Facebook Community!  We'd love to see you there! Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com  

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court decided Cooper v. Harris, formerly known as McCrory v. Harris. In this case, the Court considered a redistricting plan introduced in North Carolina after the 2010 census. Plaintiffs argued that North Carolina used the Voting Rights Act’s “Black Voting Age Population” requirements as a pretext to place more black voters in two particular U.S. House of Representatives districts in order to reduce black voters’ influence in other districts. A three-judge panel of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina determined that the redistricting plan was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because race was the predominant factor motivating the new plan. -- Appellants contend the lower court decision against them erred in five critical ways: (1) presuming racial predominance from North Carolina's legitimate reliance on Supreme Court precedent; (2) applying a standard of review that required the State to demonstrate its construction of North Carolina Congressional District 1 was “actually necessary” under the VRA instead of simply showing it had “good reasons” to believe the district, as created, was needed to foreclose future vote dilution claims; (3) relieving plaintiffs of their burden to prove “race rather than politics” predominated with proof of a workable alternative plan; (4) clearly erroneous fact-finding; and (5) failing to dismiss plaintiffs' claims as being barred by claim preclusion or issue preclusion. -- By a vote of 5-3, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the district court. In an opinion by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court held that (1) North Carolina's victory in a similar state-court lawsuit does not dictate the disposition of this case or alter the applicable standard of review; (2) the district court did not err in concluding that race furnished the predominant rationale for District 1's redesign and that the state's interest in complying with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 could not justify that consideration of race; and (3) the district court also did not clearly err by finding that race predominated in the redrawing of District 12. Justice Kagan’s majority opinion was joined by Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Alito filed an opinion concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part, in which the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy joined. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. -- And now, to discuss the case, we have Hans A. von Spakovsky, who is Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

This week's episode covers the case of Cooper v. Harris, a recent Supreme Court case which decided (1) when a State could use the Voting Rights Act as an excuse for racial gerrymandering and (2) when a State impermissibly used race as a factor for gerrymandering as opposed to permissibly using political affiliation.    This week's episode also covers the movie The Hunger Games, a recent trilogy of movies that botched the third installment, of which Brett and Nazim ruin the ending.  Law starts at (04:41).

On May 22, the Supreme Court threw out two North Carolina congressional districts as discriminatory. State legislatures face confusion over how to redistrict without violating either the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. What does this case mean for the redistricting that will occur throughout the country after the 2010 Census? How can courts distinguish between legally acceptable partisan and unacceptable racial motives in redistricting when certain racial groups disproportionately support one particular political party? Hans von Spakovsky, a former commissioner on the Federal Election Commission and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Justice Department, discussed these issues and the Cooper decision. -- Featuring: Hans A. von Spakovsky, Manager, Election Law Reform Initiative and Senior Legal Fellow, The Heritage Foundation.

Attorney, comic and writer Charles Star joins for: Law expertise from one graf ... Russia fanfic as Russian lit. ... Putin/Trump is Ali/Frazier ... All The President's Men by Dr. Steve Brule ... The FISA Court does NOT do that ... The Cooper v. Harris ruling ... Who is Trump's Fredo? ... The North Carolina Voter ID law ... Why the Roberts Court threw out VRA pre-clearance ... The Moothie and the future of Trump handshakes ... Linda McMahon cannot take a Stunner

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern. We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

This week, the Supreme Court handed down a decision that caught some Court-watchers off-guard. It ruled that North Carolina lawmakers had violated the Constitution by using race as a proxy for divvying up voters along partisan lines. And it was surprising because the swing vote invalidating the gerrymander came from none other than Justice Clarence Thomas. On this week’s episode, we parse the outcome of Cooper v. Harris -- and what it portends for future redistricting litigation -- with Slate legal writer Mark Joseph Stern. We also sit down with Jorge Barón, executive director of the Northwest Immigrant Rights Project. Each year, that group provides assistance to thousands of immigrants threatened with deportation. But last month, the NWIRP received a strange cease-and-desist letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, threatening its ongoing legal work and raising some concerns that the group is being singled out for its defense of immigrants caught up in the first iteration of President Trump’s travel ban.  Transcripts of Amicus are available to Slate Plus members, several days after each episode posts. For a limited time, get 90 days of free access to Slate Plus in the new Slate iOS app. Download it today at slate.com/app. Please let us know what you think of Amicus. Join the discussion of this episode on Facebook. Our email is amicus@slate.com. Podcast production by Tony Field.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this episode, we revisit what Andrew has called the worst problem in American politics:  gerrymandering -- but this time with a twist. We begin, however, with a listener question from Anna Bosnick, who is also our special guest for Law'd Awful Movies #7 - Legally Blonde! Anna watched the movie and listened to our intro and wants to know:  what exactly is habeas corpus, anyway? Then, we tackle the recent news about Montana Congressional candidate Greg "Body Slam" Gianforte.  Can he really take office if he's convicted of assault? In the main segment, Andrew and Thomas walk through the recent Supreme Court decision in Cooper v. Harris and discuss what it might mean for the future of gerrymandering legislation. After that, Andrew answers another listener question, this one from the exceptionally prescient Garry Myers, who wants to know whether corporations can assert 5th Amendment rights. Finally, we end with a brand new Thomas Takes the Bar Exam question #25 about smoking pot and crashing cars.  Remember that TTTBE issues a new question every Friday, followed by the answer on next Tuesday's show.  Don't forget to play along by following our Twitter feed (@Openargs) and/or our Facebook Page and quoting the Tweet or Facebook Post that announces this episode along with your guess and reason(s)! Recent Appearances: None!  But check out our Law'd Awful Movies guest, Anna Bosnick, and her amazing ukulele work over at worthyfools.com. Show Notes & Links Don't forget to check out our prior Episode #54 on Gerrymandering. In the case of Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993), Scalia opined that "of course" being actually innocent isn't grounds for habeas corpus relief, although that was walked back by the Supreme Court in McQuiggin v. Perkins, 133 S.Ct. 1924 (2013). You can also check out the Cooper v. Harris decision here. Finally, the case discussed in the C segment is Hale v. Henkel, 204 U.S. 43 (1906). Support us on Patreon at:  patreon.com/law Follow us on Twitter:  @Openargs Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/openargs/ And email us at openarguments@gmail.com Direct Download

Wherein we are joined by Jesús Joslin to discuss his article (linked below) on Shelby County and the Voting Rights Act, impeaching Trump, treason, Texas SB5 and voter ID laws, the recent Supreme Court decision in Cooper v. Harris on racial/partisan gerrymandering, and the ways Clarence Thomas can still surprise you. "Navigating the Post-Shelby Landscape" by Jesús Joslin — http://bit.ly/2qlg6WQ