Whether the district court's expedited redistricting remedial order impermissibly infringes on the Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission's constitutional authority to draw legislative district maps

No question identified. : Court has jurisdiction over applicants’ appeal of right under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. Given the January 4 notice-of-appeal filing, applicants currently must file a jurisdictional statement in this Court by March 4, 2024, to perfect their appeal. See Sup. Ct. R. 18.3. 2. The order from which the appeal is taken is an interlocutory order, not a final judgment. See Abbott v. Perez, 138 8. Ct. 2305, 2319-24 (2018). Litigation is ongoing in the court below. As a result of the injunction, the Commission is currently engaged in a second redistricting process, which the district court ordered to occur on an expedited time frame, given the “very little time” to adopt a new plan to govern the 2024 Michigan house primary elections in August. See Exhibit 3 (Scheduling Order) at 2. The district court shortened certain state-law redistricting periods, required the Commission to adopt a plan by March 1, 2024, and set deadlines for a remedial litigation process throughout the month of March—including adversarial briefing over the adopted plan; review by a special master, who will issue a report; responses to the report; potential litigation over another remedial plan drafted by a second special master; and the ultimate court approval of a remedial house plan by March 29, 2024. See id. at 5-7. Subsequently, a remedial process governing senate districts will occur on a time frame yet to be determined. Id. at 6 ({ 8). 3. Under these circumstances, there is good cause for a 60-day extension. Between now and the beginning of April, applicants and their counsel have substantial obligations under the remedial order. Redistricting is “the most difficult task a legislative body ever undertakes.” Covington v. North Carolina, 316 F.R.D. 117, 125 (M.D.N.C. 2016), aff'd, 581 U.S. 1015 (2017) (citation omitted). It is especially difficult on an expedited basis, and in a remedial setting, as part of an ongoing lawsuit. Further, the remedial work involved in this case is intensive and will require the Commission’s counsel to evaluate proposals before the Commission, consider and respond to arguments by the plaintiffs and other interested persons, address the opinions of a special master, and potentially litigate the merits of a competing plan prepared by a second special master. Briefing deadlines are tight. Under the default deadline of this Court’s rules, applicants must file a jurisdictional statement in the midst of those deadlines to secure their right of appeal, and a 30-day extension would make the jurisdictional statement due just after the expedited house remedial process concludes (and thus require its preparation during that process). 4. In addition to the demands posed by this litigation, the Commission’s counsel is engaged in active litigation for other clients around the nation, including in expedited matters and those with due dates overlapping those in this matter. See, e.g., Pierce v. N.C. State Bd. of Elections, 24-1095 (4th Cir.) (appeal filed Jan. 26, 2024; argument set Feb. 15, 2024); Kellner v. AIM Immunitech Inc., C.A. No. 23-0879 (Del.) brief due March 9, 2024; argument set April 10, 2024); Oskeske v. Silver Cinemas Acquisition Co., 23-3882 (9th Cir.) (merits brief due March 13, 2024); Nairne v. Ardoin, 3:22-cv-178 (M.D. La.) (injunction issued Feb. 8, 2024; remedial process and potential appellate litigation forthcoming). These obligations further establish good cause for an extension. 5. A briefing extension may also provide case-management benefits in this Court, given the interlocutory nature of applicants’ appeal. Remedial redistricting rulings issued after interlocutory injunctions can give rise to multiple appeals in the same action, and remedial appeals can be as complex as liability appeals. See, e.g., North Carolina v. Covington, 138 8. Ct. 2548 (2018) (per curiam); Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (1997); cf. Moore v. Harper, 600 U.S. 1, 12-19 (2023). The requested briefing extension would make applican