League of United Latin American Citizens v. City of Boerne
659 F.3d 421
5th Cir.2011Background
- LULAC and Boerne settled Voting Rights Act claims in 1996, creating a consent decree for at-large, cumulative voting for city council.
- In 2009, LULAC and Boerne moved to reopen and modify the decree to implement single-member districts; district court granted.
- Morton, Boerne voter opposing the change, attempted to intervene but was denied for lack of standing.
- DOJ precleared the 2009 modification in March 2010; district court later dismissed the case, Morton appealed.
- The Fifth Circuit held Morton had standing, the case was not moot, and Morton could intervene under Rule 24(a)(2); vacated and remanded to consider modification proper under Rufo.
- On remand, the district court was instructed to allow supplemental filings and develop a sufficient record to decide whether modification was warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Morton's standing to intervene | Morton lacks injury in fact; generalized grievance. | No viable injury distinct from public interest; Lance controls. | Morton has Article III standing. |
| Mootness of the case | DOJ preclearance could moot relief; case may be mooted if no live controversy. | Riley allows relief without preclearance; case not moot; federal courts can grant relief. | Case is not moot. |
| Right to intervene under Rule 24(a)(2) | Morton seeks to protect voting rights in five-member council. | LULAC and Boerne adequately represent Morton’s interests. | Morton has a right to intervene; four-part test satisfied. |
| District court's power to modify consent decree | Court lacked power to reopen or modify decree; mootness issues. | Courts have inherent power to modify decrees under changing circumstances. | District court had power to modify; analysis of modification required but power exists. |
| Adequacy of the modification record under Rufo | Modification warranted due to failed purpose of decree. | Record insufficient to show significant change; modification premature. | District court abused its discretion by granting modification; remand for supplemental record. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
- Lance v. Coffman, 549 U.S. 437 (2007) (undifferentiated generalized grievance; standing requires concrete interest)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 999 F.2d 831 (5th Cir. 1993) (en banc standing to object to consent decree; voters have standing)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 914 F.2d 620 (5th Cir. 1990) (initial en banc discussion on voting rights and consent decrees)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 902 F.2d 293 (5th Cir. 1990) (predecessor standing discussions in voting rights context)
- Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk Cnty. Jail, 502 U.S. 367 (1992) (flexible standard for modifying consent decrees; changed circumstances)
- United Shoe Mach. Corp. v. United States, 391 U.S. 244 (1968) (modification of injunctions may be warranted to accomplish proper remedy)
- Swift & Co. v. United States, 286 U.S. 106 (1932) (court may modify decrees entered after litigation or by consent)
- Riley v. Kennedy, 553 U.S. 406 (2008) (preclearance not always required; changing circumstances may permit relief)
- Sierra Club v. Espy, 18 F.3d 1202 (5th Cir. 1994) (standing and intervention standards; four-factor approach)