Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP | |
---|---|
Argued March 21, 2022 Decided June 23, 2022 | |
Full case name | Philip E. Berger, et al. v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. |
Docket no. | 21-248 |
Citations | 597 U.S. ___ ( more ) 2022 WL 2251306; 2022 U.S. LEXIS 3052 |
Argument | Oral argument |
Decision | Opinion |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinions | |
Majority | Gorsuch, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Barrett |
Dissent | Sotomayor |
Berger v. North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 597 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of state officials to intervene to defend the constitutionality of state laws.
In 2013, the North Carolina General Assembly passed, and Governor Pat McCrory signed, HB 589, a voter identification law. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit invalidated that law in 2016, and the Supreme Court later denied a petition for a writ of certiorari in 2017 after disputes about whether North Carolina's new governor, Roy Cooper, could withdraw the petition. In November 2018, the people of North Carolina adopted a voter identification amendment to the Constitution of North Carolina, and the General Assembly then passed SB 824 to implement the amendment in December 2018, over Cooper's veto.
After the HB 589 litigation, the General Assembly modified state law, again over Cooper's veto, to direct that the Speaker of the North Carolina House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the North Carolina Senate be able to intervene in any litigation over the constitutionality of state law.
The North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP filed suit against SB 824 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina in late December 2018. The General Assembly sought to intervene in defense of the law twice, believing North Carolina Attorney General Josh Stein was not adequately defending the law. The district court denied both motions, asserting that Stein would defend the law fairly. The General Assembly appealed, and a divided panel of the Fourth Circuit reversed in an opinion written by Judge A. Marvin Quattlebaum Jr. Judge Pamela Harris dissented. The court of appeals granted rehearing en banc, and affirmed the district court by a 9–6 vote. The General Assembly subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari. [1]
Certiorari was granted in the case on November 24, 2021. Oral arguments were held on March 21, 2022. On June 23, 2022, the Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit in an 8–1 vote. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, while Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented. [2] The Supreme Court ruling means that Republican legislators in the state of North Carolina can act and advocate for a voter-identification law that they believe the state's attorney general, a Democrat, isn't defending adequately in court. The Court rejected the idea that courts should just presume that representation is adequate where the state law has explicitly authorized some other party to intervene in the process. [3] [4]
In law, certiorari is a court process to seek judicial review of a decision of a lower court or government agency. Certiorari comes from the name of an English prerogative writ, issued by a superior court to direct that the record of the lower court be sent to the superior court for review. The term is Latin for "to be made certain", and comes from the opening line of such writs, which traditionally began with the Latin words "Certiorari volumus...".
Philip Edward Berger is a Republican member of the North Carolina General Assembly representing the state's thirtieth Senate district, which includes Caswell, Rockingham, Stokes, and Surry counties.
The Supreme Court of Maryland is the highest court of the U.S. state of Maryland. The court, which is composed of one chief justice and six associate justices, meets in the Robert C. Murphy Courts of Appeal Building in the state capital, Annapolis. The term of the Court begins the second Monday of September. The Court is unique among American courts in that the justices wear red robes.
Proposition 200, the "Arizona Taxpayer and Citizen Protection Act", was an Arizona state initiative passed in 2004 that basically requires: (a) persons to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote; (b) voters to present a photo identification before receiving a ballot at the polling place; and (c) state and local agencies to verify the identity and eligibility, based on immigration status, of applicants for non-federally mandated public benefits. The proposition also makes it a misdemeanor for public officials to fail to report violations of U.S. immigration law by applicants for those public benefits and permits private lawsuits by any resident to enforce its provisions related to public benefits. The requirement to provide proof of citizenship to register to vote was later ruled invalid in federal court.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the federal judiciary of the United States. The procedures of the Court are governed by the U.S. Constitution, various federal statutes, and its own internal rules. Since 1869, the Court has consisted of one chief justice and eight associate justices. Justices are nominated by the president, and with the advice and consent (confirmation) of the U.S. Senate, appointed to the Court by the president. Once appointed, justices have lifetime tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed from office.
The Supreme Court of the United States handed down sixteen per curiam opinions during its 2005 term, which lasted from October 3, 2005, until October 1, 2006.
The South Carolina Court of Appeals is the intermediate-level appellate court for the state of South Carolina.
Same-sex marriage has been legally recognized in North Carolina since October 10, 2014, when a U.S. District Court judge ruled in General Synod of the United Church of Christ v. Cooper that the state's denial of marriage rights to same-sex couples was unconstitutional. Governor Pat McCrory and Attorney General Roy Cooper had acknowledged that a recent ruling in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court's decision not to hear an appeal in that case established the unconstitutionality of North Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage. State legislators sought without success to intervene in lawsuits to defend the state's ban on same-sex marriage.
Same-sex marriage has been legal in South Carolina since a federal court order took effect on November 20, 2014. Another court ruling on November 18 had ordered the state to recognize same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions. Following the 2014 ruling of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Bostic v. Schaefer, which found Virginia's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and set precedent on every state in the circuit, one judge accepted marriage license applications from same-sex couples until the South Carolina Supreme Court, in response to a request by the Attorney General, ordered him to stop. A federal district court ruled South Carolina's ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional on November 12, with implementation of that decision stayed until noon on November 20. The first same-sex wedding ceremony was held on November 19.
The American Foundation for Equal Rights (AFER) was a nonprofit organization active in the United States from 2009 through 2015. The organization was established to support the plaintiffs in Hollingsworth v. Perry, a federal lawsuit challenging California's Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. AFER retained former United States Solicitor General Theodore B. Olson and David Boies to lead the legal team representing the plaintiffs challenging Proposition 8.
Golinski v. Office of Personnel Management, 824 F. Supp. 2d 968, was a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, Karen Golinski, challenged the constitutionality of section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined, for the purposes of federal law, marriage as being between one man and one woman, and spouse as a husband or wife of the opposite sex.
Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc., 570 U.S. 1 (2013), is a 2012-term United States Supreme Court case revolving around Arizona's unique voter registration requirements, including the necessity of providing documentary proof of citizenship. In a 7–2 decision, the Supreme Court held that Arizona's registration requirements were unlawful because they were preempted by federal voting laws.
Peruta v. San Diego, 824 F.3d 919, was a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit pertaining to the legality of San Diego County's restrictive policy regarding requiring documentation of "good cause" that "distinguish[es] the applicant from the mainstream and places the applicant in harm's way" before issuing a concealed carry permit.
Bostic v. Schaefer is a lawsuit filed in federal court in July 2013 that challenged Virginia's refusal to sanction same-sex marriages. The plaintiffs won in U.S. district court in February 2014, and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that ruling in July 2014. On August 20, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court stayed enforcement of the Fourth Circuit's ruling pending the outcome of further litigation. State officials refused to defend the state's constitutional and statutory bans on same-sex marriage.
Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54 (2014), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, ruling that a police officer's reasonable mistake of law can provide the individualized suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution to justify a traffic stop. The Court delivered its ruling on December 15, 2014.
South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case that held by a 5–4 majority that states may charge tax on purchases made from out-of-state sellers even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the taxing state. The decision overturned Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992), which had held that the Dormant Commerce Clause barred states from compelling retailers to collect sales or use taxes in connection with mail order or Internet sales made to their residents unless those retailers have a physical presence in the taxing state.
Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), was a landmark decision of the US Supreme Court concerning the constitutionality of governmental speech restrictions in a polling place venue. The case challenged a century-old Minnesota law that prevents voters from wearing clothing or items considered political while voting. While the Supreme Court previously affirmed that political campaigning near polling places may be restricted, the Minnesota law was challenged on being overbroad and violation of free speech rights under the First Amendment. The case's decision was issued on June 14, 2018, with the Court finding 7–2 that the Minnesota law was overbroad of what could be considered "political" speech, violating free speech rights and deemed unconstitutional.
Rucho v. Common Cause, No. 18-422, 588 U.S. ___ (2019) is a landmark case of the United States Supreme Court concerning partisan gerrymandering. The Court ruled that while partisan gerrymandering may be "incompatible with democratic principles", the federal courts cannot review such allegations, as they present nonjusticiable political questions outside the remit of these courts.
Redistricting in North Carolina has been a controversial topic due to allegations and admissions of gerrymandering.
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. ___ (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5–4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.