Abbott v. Perez (17-586)

argument 17-586

Abbott v. Perez

Supreme Court of the United States 1h 17m 6 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central jurisdictional issue the Court is being asked to decide?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case seventeen five eighty six, Abbott versus Perez, and the consolidated case. General Keller.

Ken Paxton 0:10

Thank you, Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The Texas legislature did not have a racially discriminatory purpose when it adopted the entire court ordered congressional remedial plan and virtually all of the remedial state house plan. This court told the district court to order districts that do not violate the Constitution or the VRA, and on remand in twenty twelve, the district court itself said it obeyed this court's remand and it fixed all plausible legal defects under even the low Section five standard. And indeed, today, with nine groups of plaintiffs here, we cannot draw a single additional performing majority minority district, even though plaintiffs had tried for years in both plans.

Elena Kagan 0:54

I know you want to get to the merits, but I don't want to leave the jurisdiction question. And this last point raises it for me in stark relief, which is Um You you just said you can't draw this map. the court below said you can. by not waiting for the remedy in this case We are not in a position to be fully informed on that question. And so Um I still don't understand. how you distinguish gun. That said that in these cases, unless a district court Has made clear that it is issuing an injunction or prohibiting you from using your map or some portion of your map. that you can't appeal. So could you address the Um

Elena Kagan 2:01

Well it did at least in one of the challenges. Not

Ken Paxton 2:04

not a performing district. This would be the Nueces County State House district. In fact, there the plaintiff Malk's own expert testified if we had drawn that additional performing if we'd have drawn that additional majority minority district. then neither of the districts in Noasis County would have performed. We would have faced vote dilution cracking climate. I think

Elena Kagan 2:21

that's subject to dispute by your adversary. So let's let's but but the point still remains which is every time you're ordered to change one district, it affects other districts. And in the end, the court in drawing maps. um may find that something it concluded initially is proven wrong. by the map drawing. So that goes to why finality requires us to often wait for a remedy w before we permit appeal. So tell me why that's not tr why that's not the case under Gunn.

Ken Paxton 3:00

Well, first of all, in Gunn what the district court did is it expressly state its own ruling and then for months later it issued no further order. Here, in quite stark contrast, a mere twenty one and thirteen days after the district court entered its order It was ordering the state to appear for expedited court drawn redistricting.

Elena Kagan 3:18

No, it asked the legislator to tell it. Whether it intended to do retr re redrawing. It didn't order it to do it. It just said, do you intend to? And it hadn't even started the process, but that goes only to one prong. of effectively final. The other prong is could you have gotten relief at the end of this process You were granted a stay within less than two weeks. of your fil filing a motion. So even if you had gone through the remedial stage, you still would have had time to use your maps for the next election.

Ken Paxton 3:57

Well not in orderly appellate review. And here we're in the same practical position as Cooper and as in Gill, where what happened was district courts invalidated districts And then s told the states you had to redistrict, but those courts did not impose remedial maps, and yet there was appellate jurisdiction here. Moreover, here, what distinguishes this case from virtually all other cases that the Court has had is we were ordered to do expedited redistricting on the eve of election deadlines.

Stephen G. Breyer 4:27

I mean that that's the problem. When I became a judge in nineteen eighty one, one of the first things that I was told by the pre exist Lee Campbell, he said, when you get an appeal. They are appealing from a piece of paper called a judgment. Or They are appealing from a piece of paper that says injunction motion denied. or possibly grant it. What does the piece of paper say here?