LaRoque v. Holder
400 U.S. App. D.C. 424
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Kinston, NC voters approved nonpartisan local elections; located in a §5-covered county under VRA.
- DOJ preclearance required before the law could take effect; AG objected on discriminatory effects in 2009.
- Plaintiffs, supporting the law, challenged §5 and the 2006 reauthorization as unconstitutional.
- District court initially dismissed for lack of standing; this court remanded for standing of John Nix.
- On remand, district court ruled §5 constitutional; during appeal, DOJ withdrew objection in 2012 after new evidence.
- Court vacated district court judgment and remanded to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction due to mootness when AG withdrew objection.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether AG's withdrawal moots the case | LaRoque argues continuing injury persists | DOJ withdrawal creates no ongoing injury | Yes; case moot; no live controversy left |
| Whether DOJ had authority to withdraw §5 objection | Regulation does not permit withdrawal | Regulations authorize withdrawal; consistent with statutory scheme | Yes; withdrawal authority reasonable and consistent with law |
| Whether potential future preclearance actions sustain standing | Future local bills require preclearance causing ongoing injury | Speculative; no cognizable injury without actual proposal | No; speculative future injury insufficient for standing |
| Whether invalidating §5 would affect Nix's election rights | §5 invalidation could lead to new election | NC law provides no authority for revoking certified elections; speculative | Too speculative to sustain ongoing stake; mootness persists |
Key Cases Cited
- Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305 (1988) (actual controversy and mootness principles)
- Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699 (D.C.Cir. 1990) (mootness requires live controversy throughout litigation)
- Harris v. Bell, 562 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir. 1977) (assumed authority to withdraw objections in prior case)
- Better Gov't Ass'n v. Dep't of State, 780 F.2d 86 (D.C.Cir. 1986) (injury policy: obtained everything recoverable; mootness)
- Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472 (1990) (standing requires continuing concrete injury)