Court Opinion

ID: 9427326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 23:20:24.406113+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:23:06.217811
License: Public Domain

Mr. Justice Rehnquist,
with whom Mr. Justice Stevens joins,
dissenting.
No party to this case has requested this Court to issue an order requiring or allowing appellees to apply for approval of the 1968 voting change under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The United States, when requested by this Court to express its views, made such a request. But the United States is only an amicus curiae in this case, and it has no standing to request relief which has never been requested by the parties. The opinion of the Court goes not merely beyond the scope of any relief sought from the District Court, but also decides questions beyond those presented in the jurisdictional state*203ment of appellants. In so doing, of course, the opinion is contrary to our Rule 15, which provides: “Only the questions set forth in the jurisdictional statement or fairly comprised therein will be considered by the court.”
I would affirm the judgment of the District Court in its entirety.