Source: https://www.brennancenter.org/print/17671
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 22:32:13+00:00

Document:
On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court vacated the district court’s decision. In a majority opinion  by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on the merits of the plaintiffs’ constitutional claims and instead vacated the decision on standing grounds, remanding the case to the district court for reconsideration of standing and other further proceedings. On remand, the district court permitted the Wisconsin State Assembly to intervene as defendants in the case.
On January 23, 2019, the court granted in part the State Assembly's motion to stay the case, postponing trial until the U.S. Supreme Court rules on partisan gerrymandering appeals from North Carolina  and Maryland . Trial is now set for July 15, 2019.
Key pleadings for Gill v. Whitford can be found here .
The three-judge panel hearing the case denied the state’s motion to dismiss and held that a map could be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander if the plaintiffs could satisfy a three-part test  laid out by the court.
On June 18, 2018, the Court affirmed  the district court's decision not to enjoin the map, holding that the district court's denial was not abuse of discretion.
Back before the district court, on November 7, 2018, the three-judge panel granted  the plaintiffs' request to permanently enjoin the 2011 plan and ordered new maps be drawn for the 2020 elections.
Key pleadings for Benisek v. Lamone can be found here .
On January 11, 2018, the district court struck down the map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander, blocked the state from using the plan for future elections, and appointed a special master to redraw the map. However, the legislative defendants appealed, and the Supreme Court stayed the district court’s order pending appeal. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court declined to set the case for argument and instead remanded  the case for reconsideration in light of its Whitford opinion.
Key pleadings for Rucho v. League of Women Voters of North Carolina can be found here .
Key pleadings for Rucho v. Common Cause can be found here .
Common Cause, the North Carolina Democratic Party, and a group of voters filed a lawsuit on November 13, 2018, in North Carolina Superior Court, challenging the state's legislative maps on partisan gerrymandering grounds. The legislature drew these maps in 2017 after the federal courts—in Covington v. North Carolina  —threw out the prior plans for racial gerrymandering. According to the plaintiffs, the Republican legislative leadership created the 2017 plans to entrench lasting Republican majorities. The plaintiffs contend that the new plans violate several provisions of North Carolina’s constitution: the Equal Protection Clause; the Free Elections Clause; and the Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Assembly Clauses.
Key pleadings for Common Cause v. Lewis can be found here .
The defendant, Michigan Secretary of State Ruth Johnson, asked the court to stay proceedings in the case pending the Supreme Court’s decisions in Gill v. Whitford  and Benisek v. Lamone  , which the court denied. The defendant also argued that the court should dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims for lack of standing if the court does not stay the proceedings.
Key pleadings for League of Women Voters of Michigan v. Benson can be found here .
Key pleadings for Ohio A. Philip Randolph Inst. v. Householder can be found here .
In addition to the three North Carolina partisan gerrymandering cases discussed above, two cases contended that North Carolina’s 2011 legislative and congressional maps were racial gerrymanders, and one challenges the constitutionality of a 2017 remedial map.
Wake County residents and a number of civil rights organizations in North Carolina filed a challenge in state court to four state house districts in Wake County that were drawn in the 2017 remedial redistricting plan as a result of North Carolina v. Covington  . The plaintiffs argue that the newly drawn districts violate the state constitution’s prohibition against mid-decade redistricting. The plaintiffs claim that lawmakers went beyond what the federal court directed in Covington and altered districts that did not need to be redrawn to remedy the racial gerrymandering identified in that earlier case.
On February 21, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a preliminary injunction to enjoin the defendants from conducting elections in the four state house districts and to return the districts to their 2011 boundaries for the 2018 elections.
On April 13, 2018, the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction. The court’s decision preserves the district boundaries drawn by the North Carolina legislature in Wake County for the 2018 election.
On May 1, 2018, the plaintiffs filed a motion for summary judgment, asking the court to declare that the Wake County house districts in the 2017 remedial plan violate the state constitution’s prohibition against mid-decade redistricting. On November 2, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and ordered the NC General Assembly to revise the plan for use in the 2020 general election.
Key pleadings for North Carolina State Conference of NAACP Branches v. Lewis can be found here .
On June 26, 2018, the district court ruled  in a 2-1 decision that the eleven challenged state house districts were racially gerrymandered. The court ordered the General Assembly to create a remedial map by October 30, 2018.
On July 6, the defendants appealed  the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 8, 2019, the Supreme Court declined the defendants' request to halt the remedial map-drawing process pending the appeal. Oral argument took place on March 18, 2019.
Key pleadings for Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections can be found here .
Key pleadings for Dwight v. Crittenden can be found here .
On June 25, 2018, in a 5-4 decision, the Court reversed  the lower court’s findings that the state legislature intentionally discriminated against Latino and African-American voters in adopting the 2013 congressional and state house maps. In addition, the Court reversed findings of violations of the Voting Rights Act and racial gerrymandering, holding that only one of the challenged state house districts, HD90, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Key pleadings for Abbott v. Perez can be found here .
Key pleadings for Chestnut v. Merrill can be found here .
Key pleadings for Johnson v. Ardoin can be found here .
Key pleadings for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. Merrill can be found here .
Key pleadings for Thomas v. Bryant can be found here .

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.