Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Jose Trevino, et al. v. Susan Soto Palmer, et al.
Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, No. 23-35595
Before the decision, about 2.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for counsel with five or more prior petitions here and a Ninth Circuit decision below.
Question presented
Alongside Defendant State of Washington, Intervenor Defendant-Petitioners (“Soto Palmer Intervenors”) defended against a Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) Section 2 claim that challenged Legislative District 15 (“LD-15”) of Washington’s recently enacted state legislative map (“Enacted Plan”). Simultaneously, the State defended against a Fourteenth Amendment racial gerrymandering claim in the separate case Garcia v. Hobbs, which also challenged LD-15. Both cases were heard in a consolidated trial (the constitutional claim by a threejudge panel, the VRA claim by a single judge who also served on the panel). Both cases were submitted together on July 12, 2023, to the three judges comprising the two courts. The single-judge Soto Palmer Court issued its Section 2 decision first, finding that the majorityHispanic LD-15 diluted Hispanic voting power, even though the only election conducted in LD-15 resulted in a 35-point victory for a Latina candidate. The Soto Palmer Court also ordered the creation of a remedial map that increases the district’s Hispanic citizen voting age population (“HCVAP”). Then, a majority of the three-judge Garcia Court dismissed the constitutional racial gerrymandering claim as moot under the theory that the Soto Palmer injunction cut off any path to relief. The questions presented are: 1. May a single-judge district court’s ruling on a Section 2 claim, challenging a legislative district,
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Jason Brett Torchinsky
Holtzman Vogel Baran Torchinsky Josefiak PLLC
For respondent
Mark Peter Gaber
Campaign Legal Center
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 3 conferences
Amicus briefs
1 cert-stage
Proceedings
- Feb 20 2024Petition DENIED.
- Feb 09 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/16/2024.
- Jan 03 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/19/2024.
- Jan 02 2024Waiver of the 14-day waiting period for the distribution of the petition pursuant to Rule 15.5 filed by petitioner.
- Jan 02 2024Reply of petitioners Jose Trevino, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 29 2023Brief of respondents Susan Soto Palmer, et al. in opposition filed.
- Dec 29 2023Brief of respondent Washington in opposition filed. (Distributed)
- Dec 28 2023Brief amici curiae of National Republican Redistricting Trust, et al. filed.
- Dec 06 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response is denied.
- Dec 04 2023Response to motion to extend the time to file a response from petitioners filed.
- Dec 04 2023Reply in support of motion to extend the time to file a response filed.
- Dec 01 2023Motion to extend the time to file a response from December 29, 2023 to February 27, 2024, submitted to The Clerk.
- Dec 01 2023Correction to Appendix of Jose Trevino, et al. submitted.
- Nov 29 2023Response Requested. (Due December 29, 2023)
- Nov 21 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2023.
- Nov 15 2023Waiver of right of respondents Susan Soto Palmer, Alberto Macias, Faviola Lopez, Caty Padilla, Heliodora Morfin to respond filed.
- Nov 14 2023Waiver of right of respondents State of Washington; Washington Secretary of State Steven Hobbs to respond filed.
- Nov 03 2023Petition for a writ of certiorari before judgment filed. (Response due December 7, 2023)