Home Menu ↓
Clicking on our sponsor links helps insure continued free access to this website.
Please support our efforts by visiting our sponsors:

 

Branch v. Smith

Docket No.: 01-1437
Argued: December 10, 2002
Decided: March 31, 2003
Consolidated with: Smith v. Branch, No. 01-1596

Topics:

Voting Rights Act of 1965, Civil Rights, Reapportionment, Article I, Clean Water, Clean Water Act, EPA, Immigration and Nationality Act, Indians, Natural Resources, Supremacy Clause, Voting Rights Act of 1965, antitrust, immigration, judicial review, patent, preliminary injunction, qualified immunity

PartyNames: Beatrice Branch, et al., Appellants v. John Robert Smith, et al.
Petitioner: Beatrice Branch, et al., Appellants
Respondent: John Robert Smith, et al.

Court Below: United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Citation: SD Miss, 189 F. Supp.2d 548. QUESTION PRESENTED Whether, as its plain language declares, 2 U.S.C. ยง 2a(c)(5) requires a State whoserepresentation in Congress has been reduced after a census to elect its Representatives "from the State at large" "[u]ntil a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof."
Supreme Court Docket

Beatrice Branch, et al., Appellants
v.
John Robert Smith, et al.
538 U.S. 254 (2003)
Question:

Did the District Court properly enjoin the Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and properly fashion its own congressional reapportionment plan?Did the District Court properly enjoin the Mississippi state court's proposed congressional redistricting plan and properly fashion its own congressional reapportionment plan?

Branch v. Smith
ORAL ARGUMENT

December 10, 2002

Holding: affirmed
Decision: Decision: 7 votes for Smith, 2 vote(s) against
Database Connection failed: SQLSTATE[HY000] [1045] Access denied for user 'restauz8_sophi'@'localhost' (using password: YES)