cc: @_justinlevitt_ if I remember NC presents multiple claims, including Elections Clause, which will require different standing analysis than dilution or perhaps even 1st Amend; SCOTUS could affirm on alternative ground w/o Gill-type standing; but maybe will still prefer remand?
-
-
-
There are also statewide organizations involved in NC, with members in every challenged districts. I don't know if SCOTUS will remand just as a matter of course - probably depends on whether they'd prefer to have the NC case up first next fall.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Am I mis-remembering? I thought NC case has plaintiffs from each congressional district. Maybe, still, a remand is necessary so plaintiffs can spell out details of how packing and cracking actually hurts them as individuals (without need, as in Gill, to add new plaintiffs)?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.