The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in two cases: the Virginia racial gerrymandering case, Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill; and a reviewability of agency decision case, Smith v. Berryhill.
The Virginia lawsuit was filed in 2014 by residents in 12 different districts in the state. The challengers contended that the legislature, by adopting the 2011 map in which 55 percent of the voters in each of the 12 districts were African-American, had illegally diluted their strength in neighboring districts, giving Republicans an advantage there. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the district court, which decided to throw out the map. The Virginia House of Delegates appealed.
The oral argument centered on whether the Virginia House of Delegates has the standing to appeal. Mr. Clement, representing the Virginia House of Delegates, argued that the House is “exactly the right party to bring this case.” Clement argued that in the court’s fist opinion, it referred to the House of Delegates as “the State,” and “the House of Delegates were representing the State with the acquiescence of the State attorney general.” Clement also said that the state attorney general “forfeited the ability to insist that they have the exclusive right to represent the Commonwealth.” Justice Sonia Sotomayor called this argument a “pretty extreme statement.” Mr. Heytens, on behalf of Virginia state board of elections, argued that whether the House of Delegates has the standing to appeal is a matter of state law and should be decided by the state itself.
The justices appeared equally divided with regard to the issue of whether or not the 11 districts are indeed unconstitutionally designated upon racial lines. Chief Justice John Roberts stressed that the legal standard for determining whether race was a primary consideration in redistricting “depends heavily” on whether the trial court believes that witnesses are credible. Clement agreed that if the court treats the testimony of the principle author of the map as incredible, then the court is “left with Hamlet without the prince.” Clement argued that the court should also look at HD 92, because they applied the same legal analysis to all the districts, and they came out with the same result in every district. Justice Elena Kagan responded that “the analysis ought to be made district by district.” Clement counter-argued that by comparing differences between districts, 55 percent is the “right number to avoid retrogression in contested primaries.”
Monday’s second oral argument arises out of a case where the Social Security Administration’s Appeals Council denied a renewal of Ricky Lee Smith’s application for supplemental security income (SSI) resulting from disability. The council said Smith did not file his claim on time. Smith alleged that he suffered due process violations, but the district court and the Sixth Circuit Court rejected his claim.
In the second oral argument, Mr. Kimberly, on behalf of Smith, argued that The Appeals Council’s decision in this case dismissing Petitioner’s request for review as untimely was a final decision on his request for benefits. After the Appeals Council’s decision, there was nothing left for the agency to do, and the agency’s denial of benefits became conclusive and binding. Kimberly stressed the review-ability point that “a decision by the Appeals Council that a claimant has failed to file a timely request for review must be reviewable under Section 405(g) by a district court.”
Kimberly also responds negatively to Sotomayor’s question of whether the court could simply dismiss the case on the basis of the government’s now waiver of this issue even though a number of the courts have determined that it is a jurisdictional question.
