[EL] Unanimous decision on three-judge-court requirement in Shapiro v. McManus

[Smith, Brad]

"Short version:  A redistricting challenge is not "wholly insubstantial"--and thus must be heard by a three-judge court--if it is based on a theory that Justice Kennedy a Justice of the Supreme Court has endorsed (at least so long as a majority of the Court has not rejected it)."

-- Fixed it for you.


Bradley A. Smith

Josiah H. Blackmore II/Shirley M. Nault

   Professor of Law

Capital University Law School

303 E. Broad St.

Columbus, OH 43215

614.236.6317

http://law.capital.edu/faculty/bios/bsmith.aspx

________________________________
From: law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu [law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu] on behalf of Marty Lederman [lederman.marty at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 10:42 AM
To: edu law-election at uci. edu law-election at uci.
Subject: [EL] Unanimous decision on three-judge-court requirement in Shapiro v. McManus

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-990_10n2.pdf

Short version:  A redistricting challenge is not "wholly insubstantial"--and thus must be heard by a three-judge court--if it is based on a theory that Justice Kennedy has endorsed (at least so long as a majority of the Court has not rejected it).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20151208/9ff7a584/attachment.html>