Three-Judge District Court: No Equal Protection Violations In Excluding Military From Reapportionment Population, Or in 44% Deviation
by Robert Thomas (Plaintiff Attorney), InverseCondemnation.com July 12, 2013
It's easy to report when you win a case, not so easy when you ... don't (at least not yet).
That's the result in this stage of the Hawaii reapportionment case, as yesterday, a three-judge U.S. District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and entered summary judgment for the state defendants. We represent the plaintiffs by the way. Here's the court's Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment.
We won't comment on the case, but we can repeat what we told the papers:
We always believed that the issues in this case merited resolution by the U.S. Supreme Court. We were hoping that a favorable decision from the Hawaii District Court would save us from taking it further, but alas no. While we have not finished reviewing the Hawaii District Court's rationale in detail, everything we've read so far leads us to believe that the Supreme Court will be interested in reviewing this decision, and in resolving the issues in our favor.
Here are some other reports on the decision:
More to follow. As a decision of a three-judge district court, we're allowed to skip the Ninth Circuit and go straight to the Supreme Court with an as-of-right appeal.
More about the case here (including a complete set of briefs and relevant pleadings).
Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment and Granting Defendants' Motion for Summa...