No. 18-123

In Re Citizens for Fair Representation, et al.

Lower Court: N/A
Docketed: 2018-07-27
Status: Denied
Type: Paid
Response Waived
Tags: 28-usc-2284 chief-circuit-judge civil-rights district-court district-judge due-process equal-protection judicial-procedure legislative-apportionment mandamus motion-to-dismiss redistricting standing standing-doctrine three-judge-district-court three-judge-panel voting-rights
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference: 2018-09-24
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Challenge to legislative district apportionment, three-judge district court, standing

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. In a case challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of legislative districts, may a district judge, sitting alone, decide a motion to dismiss for lack of standing or, rather, does this Court's unanimous opinion in Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (2015), require that that motion be decided by a three-judge district court convened pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284(a)? 2. May the Chief Circuit Judge interfere with a district judge’s exercise of responsibility pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284(b)(1) by instructing the district judge to withdraw the notice issued pursuant to that section and decide the motion to dismiss as a single-judge district court?

Docket Entries

2018-10-01
Petition DENIED.
2018-08-22
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 9/24/2018.
2018-08-08
Waiver of right of respondent Alex Padilla to respond filed.
2018-07-10
Petition for a writ of mandamus filed. (Response due August 27, 2018)

Attorneys

Alex Padilla
George WatersDepartment of Justice, Respondent
George WatersDepartment of Justice, Respondent
Citizens for Fair Representation, et al.
Scott Erik StafneStafne Law Advocacy & Consulting, Petitioner
Scott Erik StafneStafne Law Advocacy & Consulting, Petitioner