National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Merrill
The NAACP and various members filed suit to challenge Connecticut’s 2011 state legislative maps, contending that the maps violate the Fourteenth Amendment because of prison gerrymandering.
Note: The Brennan Center is not a participant in this case.
Case Background
The NAACP, along with the NAACP Connecticut State Conference and five Connecticut NAACP members, filed a lawsuit in federal district court contending that Connecticut’s 2011 state legislative maps violate the “one person, one vote” principle of the Fourteenth Amendment because of unlawful prison gerrymandering. The plaintiffs define prison gerrymandering as the practice of counting prisoners as residents of the district in which they are imprisoned rather than at their home addresses for the purpose of drawing state legislative districts. The plaintiffs argue that this practice dilutes the voting power of the predominantly African American and Latino prisoners’ home communities.
The plaintiffs have asked the court to enjoin the 2011 maps. In the event the legislature does not pass a constitutional redistricting plan, the plaintiffs request the court order a new set of maps to be drawn.
On February 15, 2019, the court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss, ruling, among other things, that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar the plaintiffs’ suit. On March 7, 2019, the defendants appealed the decision and requested a stay pending that appeal. On July 15, 2019, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals granted the stay and ordered an expedited appeal. Oral argument took place at the Second Circuit on September 10.
On September 24, the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s Eleventh Amendment ruling and remanded the case with instructions to the district court to refer future proceedings to a three-judge panel.
The three-judge panel set a briefing schedule for the remaining proceedings, with oral argument on any dispositive motions set for June 16, 2020.
On April 14, 2020, the parties filed a joint stipulation for dismissal, which the court granted on April 16.
Documents
District Court
- Complaint (June 28, 2018)
- Motion to Dismiss (September 6, 2018)
- Defendants’ Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (September 6, 2018)
- Motion to Stay Discovery (September 6, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Opposition to Motion to Stay Discovery (October 4, 2018)
- Plaintiffs’ Reply in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (October 4, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to Dismiss (October 18, 2018)
- Defendants’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion to Stay Discovery (October 18, 2018)
- Order Denying Motion to Dismiss (February 15, 2019)
- Notice of Appeal (March 7, 2019)
- Motion for Stay (March 7, 2019)
- Supplemental Report of Parties’ Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting (March 8, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Stay (March 15, 2019)
- Defendants’ Reply Brief in Further Support of Motion for Stay (March 19, 2019)
- Order Denying Motion for Stay (May 8, 2019)
- Order Denying Motion for Stay (May 8, 2019)
- Amended Complaint (October 15, 2019)
- Designation of Three-Judge Panel (October 17, 2019)
- Defendants’ Answer and Affirmative Defenses (January 6, 2020)
- Joint Stipulation of Dismissal (April 14, 2020)
Second Circuit Court of Appeals
- Scheduling Order (March 14, 2019)
- Defendant-Appellants’ Brief (May 13, 2019)
- Joint Appendix (May 13, 2019)
- Defendant-Appellants’ Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal (May 13, 2019)
- Plaintiffs’ Brief in Opposition to Motion for Stay (May 14, 2019)
- Order (May 15, 2019)
- Defendant-Appellants’ Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Stay (May 15, 2019)
- Order Granting Motion for Stay (July 15, 2019)
- Plaintiffs-Appellees’ Brief (August 12, 2019)
- Defendant-Appellants’ Reply Brief (August 26, 2019)
- Opinion (September 24, 2019)
- Judgment (September 24, 2019)