Case Status: Loss.

Nix v. Holder: Chronology

  • Federal Appellate Courts, U.S. Supreme Court
November 12, 2012

Court Declines to Review Voting Rights Case

On November 12, 2012, the Supreme Court denied CIR’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Nix v. Holder.

CIR asks Court to review Kinston, NC case

Together with lead counsel Michael Carvin, CIR filed a petition for a writ of certiorari in Nix et al. v. Holder, its case challenging the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

July 20, 2012
February 21, 2012

CIR counters move to dismiss voting rights challenge

Together with lead counsel Michael Carvin, CIR filed a brief challenging a last ditch effort by the Department of Justice to prevent the Court of Appeals from ruling on the merits of CIR’s facial challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

DOJ moves to dismiss LaRoque v. Holder…again

The Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Right Act, on grounds that it is moot.

February 14, 2012
February 13, 2012

DOJ reverses: preclears Kinston nonpartisan voting

Late Friday night, the Department of Justice filed with the Court of Appeals a copy of a letter informing Kinston, North Carolina officials that it had reversed its 2009 decision denying preclearance to the nonpartisan voting system passed by voter referendum in 2008.

AG Holder reconsiders Kinston preclearance

Attorney General Eric Holder sent a letter to the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit advising that he is going to reconsider his denial of preclearance for the Kinston nonpartisan voting system on the basis of “new” information he recently received about racial voting patterns in Kinston.

January 30, 2012
December 22, 2011

Setback in voting rights challenge

U.S. Federal District Court Judge John Bates issued a ninety-six page opinion in LaRoque v. Holder,  CIR’s challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The court upheld Section 5 against CIR’s challenge following the reasoning in another recent case, Shelby County v. Holder.

CIR to appeal voting rights ruling

CIR will appeal a ruling that CIR clients Stephen LaRoque, John Nix, Klay Northrup, Lee Rainor, and Tony Cuomo — individual candidates and referendum sponsors in Kinston, North Carolina — lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

December 20, 2011
October 26, 2011

District Court hears oral argument in voting rights case

A judge of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia heard oral argument in CIR’s historic challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

Court grants standing in voting rights challenge

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a decision holding that CIR plaintiffs Stephen LaRoque, John Nix and others have standing to pursue their challenge of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

July 8, 2011
January 6, 2011

CIR files motion for expedited appeal

CIR filed a motion for expedited review of Judge Bates’ December 20 ruling dismissing CIR’s challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. 

CIR to appeal voting rights ruling

CIR decided to appeal a ruling that CIR clients Stephen LaRoque, John Nix, Klay Northrup, Lee Rainor, and Tony Cuomo — individual candidates and referendum sponsors in Kinston, North Carolina — lack standing to challenge the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

December 20, 2010
November 12, 2010

Court sets hearing date, further schedule in Section 5 challenge

U.S  District Judge John D. Bates set December 3, 2010, as the date he will hear the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss Laroque v. Holder, CIR’s lawsuit challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The judge wrote that he expects to “resolve the motion promptly thereafter.”

Wait — hurry up

U.S. District Court Judge John D. Bates stayed LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s challenge to Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Proceedings — including consideration of our motion for summary judgment — are stayed until the court decides the Justice Department’s motion to dismiss the case.

September 16, 2010
August 18, 2010

CIR moves for summary judgment in voting rights case

Lead Counsel Michael Carvin filed a motion for summary judgment in CIR’s case on behalf of citizens of Kinston, North Carolina, in which we ask the court to strike down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional.

NC NAACP seeks to intervene in voting rights case

The North Carolina State Conference of Branches of the NAACP and several Kinston, NC residents moved to intervene as defendants in LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

July 7, 2010
July 1, 2010

CIR files reply brief in voting rights case

CIR filed papers responding to the Department of Justice’s motion to dismiss CIR’s case challenging Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, LaRoque v. Holder.

Judge Bates denies motion for three-judge panel

U.S. District Court Judge John Bates released a memorandum opinion denying CIR’s motion to have LaRoque v. Holder heard by a special three-judge panel.

May 12, 2010
April 29, 2010

CIR argues for three-judge court in LaRoque v. Holder

Lead counsel Michael Carvin filed a reply to the Department of Justice’s objection to a three-judge court being appointed to hear CIR’s challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, LaRoque v. Holder.

Related Section 5 challenge filed by Shelby County, AL

Shelby County, Alabama, filed a challenge to the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and asked that it be deemed a “related case” to LaRoque v. Holder, CIR’s constitutional challenge filed on April 7.

April 27, 2010
April 7, 2010

CIR files challenge to federal voting rights law

CIR filed suit against Attorney General Eric Holder and in so doing challenged the constitutionality of Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.