Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Abbott v. Perez

Supreme Court of the United States · 2018 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawRedistrictingVoting Rights ActEqual Protection28 U.S.C. §1253practical effectinjunctionpresumption of good faith

Facts

A three-judge district court drew interim Texas congressional and state house districting plans for the 2012 elections under Perry v. Perez. In 2013, the Texas Legislature repealed its 2011 plans and enacted the court's interim plans with only minor changes; those plans were then used in 2014 and 2016. In 2017, the district court held that several districts in the 2013 plans were unlawful, largely because it found the repealed 2011 plans had been enacted with discriminatory intent and that the 2013 Legislature had not cured that taint. The court also found §2 violations in CD27, HD32, and HD34, and an independent racial-gerrymander violation in HD90.

Issue

Whether the district court's orders were appealable as injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1253, and whether the district court correctly held that the 2013 Texas Legislature acted with discriminatory intent in enacting the 2013 plans and that certain districts violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act or the Equal Protection Clause.

Rule

For purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1253, an order is appealable if it has the practical effect of granting or denying an injunction. In reviewing a later-enacted redistricting plan, courts must begin with a presumption of legislative good faith, and challengers bear the burden to prove that the later legislature itself acted with discriminatory intent; that legislature is not required to prove it cured any taint attributed to an earlier legislature. A §2 effects claim requires the Gingles factors and proof that an additional reasonably compact minority opportunity district can be created beyond those already existing.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

A three-judge federal district court in Georgia issues an order stating that several districts in the state's new legislative map violate federal law and "must be remedied." The court gives the attorney general four days to say whether the legislature will reconvene and sets a remedial map-drawing hearing for the next week if the state declines, but the order says it is "not styled as an injunction."

Is the order directly appealable to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. §1253?

Explanation. An order of a three-judge court is appealable under §1253 when it has the practical effect of granting or denying injunctive relief. Here, declaring the map unlawful, requiring a prompt state response, and setting expedited remedial proceedings aimed at replacing the map before elections effectively bars use of the map. The label does not control, and failure to comply with Rule 65(d) does not defeat jurisdiction.