State of Texas v. United States
418 U.S. App. D.C. 387
| D.C. Cir. | 2015Background
- After the 2010 census Texas sought judicial preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act for its congressional and state legislative maps; several intervenors opposed preclearance and prevailed after a two-week trial in the D.C. three-judge court.
- While Texas’s appeal was pending, the Texas Legislature adopted new redistricting plans and the Supreme Court decided Shelby County v. Holder, invalidating Section 4’s coverage formula.
- The Supreme Court vacated the D.C. district court’s denial of preclearance and remanded for further consideration in light of Shelby County and possible mootness.
- On remand the three-judge court dismissed Texas’s suit as moot (citing both the legislative repeal/replacement and Shelby County) and noted intervenors could seek attorneys’ fees.
- Intervenors moved for attorneys’ fees; Texas filed a three‑page “Advisory” asserting it was the prevailing party based on Shelby County and declined to fully oppose the fee motions.
- The single district judge (on remand) applied D.D.C. Local Rule 7(b), treated Texas’s failure to brief the fee opposition as waiver, awarded fees to the intervenors, and the D.C. Circuit affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Texas) | Defendant's Argument (Intervenors) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Shelby County automatically made Texas the "prevailing party" for fee statutes | Shelby County categorically defeated Section 4 coverage and thus made Texas the prevailing party immediately | Prevailing-party status depends on final judicial relief; intervenors obtained a merits judgment later vacated as moot by intervening events and thus are eligible for fees | Court: Texas preserved only the Shelby argument; but Shelby did not automatically make Texas prevailing; GVR does not decide merits and Texas waived other arguments |
| Whether the district court properly applied Local Rule 7(b) to deem unaddressed fee objections conceded | Texas contended Rule 7(b) should not bar relief (implicit in Advisory) | Intervenors: Texas’s failure to file a memorandum opposing the motions waived its defenses | Court: Enforcement of Local Rule 7(b) is within district court discretion; Texas forfeited challenge by not raising it below or in opening brief |
| Whether the legislative repeal/replacement mooted the case and supports intervenors’ prevailing-party status | Texas argued Shelby alone mooted case; legislative timing prevents fee eligibility argument | Intervenors argued the Legislature’s repeal/replacement combined with Shelby mooted case and produced a favorable district-court judgment before vacatur | Court: District court credited that repeal plus Shelby mooted the case; Texas waived challenge to this factual-legal mix by not briefing it below |
| Whether a GVR order by the Supreme Court establishes prevailing-party status | Texas claimed the Supreme Court’s vacatur/remand meant Texas ‘‘won’’ | Intervenors: A GVR is non-precedential and does not resolve merits or fee entitlement | Court: GVRs do not decide merits; they do not automatically declare a prevailing party for fee purposes |
Key Cases Cited
- Shelby County v. Holder, 133 S. Ct. 2612 (U.S. 2013) (invalidating Section 4 coverage formula; did not rule on §5)
- FDIC v. Bender, 127 F.3d 58 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (district court has discretion to enforce local rules)
- Wannall v. Honeywell, 775 F.3d 425 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (unaddressed arguments may be treated as conceded under local rule)
- Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (local-rule enforcement promotes docket management and fair play)
- National Black Police Ass’n v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 168 F.3d 525 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (fees can be awarded where a favorable district-court judgment is vacated as moot after legislative repeal)
- Buckhannon Bd. & Care Home, Inc. v. West Virginia Dep’t of Health & Human Res., 532 U.S. 598 (U.S. 2001) (prevailing-party doctrine requires judicially sanctioned change in legal relationship)