Today was the final day for arguments during OT08 and the Court heard arguments in Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District No. 1 v. Holder. You can find the transcript here.

The arguments made were certainly very interesting. Justice Scalia, while criticizing the near-unanimity with which Congress passed the VRA extension, made this observation:

You know, the Israeli Supreme Court, the Sanhedrin, used to have a rule that if the death penalty was pronounced unanimously, it was invalid, because there must be something wrong there.

I wasn’t aware of an such law, but the concept seems silly. The fact that something is so clear as to illicit a unanimous judgement doesn’t seem to in any way suggest a particular path for its reasoning. Justice Scalia’s hypothesis that Congress has a bias in favor of maintaining the status quo with regards to the VRA might be correct, but I just don’t see it playing into the equation here. Both sides are trying to argue the VRA on its merits and I’m not sure political bias of congress has a major role to play in this case as a balancing factor.

Justice Kennedy brought up some soverignty issues that I didn’t expect to see during oral arguments:

[Y]et the Congress has made a finding that the sovereignty of Georgia is less than the sovereign dignity of Ohio. The sovereignty of Alabama, is less than the sovereign dignity of Michigan. And the governments in one are to be trusted less than the governments than the other. And does the United States take that position today?

The sovereignty issue seems a bit odd to me. When the VRA was passed in 1965, Congress used a test to determine which localities met certain conditions and if so, the pre-emption clause was applied to them and they were forced to comply with Section 5. Petitioners argue that the conditions that were at play in 1965 no longer apply and that if the same test was used today, only parts of Hawaii would fall under Section 5, but I the argument that the test was used to unfairly infringe upon the sovereignty of some states while leaving others alone seems bizarre.

Anyways, the arguments are definitely worth a listen if you have a few moments to spare.

1 Response to “Final Argument Transcript of the Term – Northwest Austin v. Holder”

  1. 1 AJ

    Perhaps the verdict would be invalid, not because of how obvious the facts were, but because of the competence of the jury. The death penalty is so severe that if less than 8.3% (1/12th) of a panel is squeemish about it, then that panel isn’t a representative sample of peers. – This source suggests that if not a single member of the panel could find enough merit in the accused’s life to vote against the death penalty, then none had examined his life closely enough.

    Essentially, it isn’t “so clear as to illicit a unanimous judgement,” but rather it is so unscrutinized as to illicit a unanimous judgement. Scalia may have a point, but again he may not. Scalia was confirmed by the same 98-0 margin as the VRA was passed ( )

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.


Random Posts

  • New Opinions and Updated Statistics: The Supreme Court released three new opinions today and dismissed one hotly-anticipated case as improvidently granted. Graham v. Florida-...
  • Westlaw Flag Colors for OT10 Cases: I've always thought it was funny that WestLaw handed out yellow flags like they were candy. I'm referring, of course, to "KeyCite Status Fla...
  • Profile: H. Bartow Farr, III: In the past, we've profiled notable advocates and judges that were in the news. This is the first in a series of posts about the advocates w...
  • Change is Fun But...: I'm sad to see Justice Stevens leave the Court for a variety of reasons that have been well documented by people smarter than me. I'm also e...
  • Who is Roy W. McLeese?: This morning, as I was perusing next month's hearing list, I noticed a name I wasn't familiar with: Roy W. McLeese. It isn't unusual to see ...