[EL] (no subject)

[Samuel Bagenstos]

Pretty sure a difference in the allocation of the burden of proof is a recognized exception to issue preclusion, alas.

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 25, 2013, at 10:51 PM, "Pildes, Rick" <pildesr at exchange.law.nyu.edu> wrote:

> A three-judge federal court has found already that Texas’ redistricting plan was motivated by a racially discriminatory purpose.  Whether that finding is right or wrong, I assume it is going to be collateral estoppel against the state in the immediate litigation that is going to ensue.  Unless that finding was affected by Section 5 – because it resulted from the shifted burden of proof under Section 5 – Texas’ only recourse if it wants to put into effect the rejected plan would be to appeal to the Supreme Court.  I haven’t reviewed the three-judge court opinion lately but I’d be interested to learn more about this issue from lawyers on the list who have.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> http://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20130625/db1b3717/attachment.html>