Brewster v. Berger, 2:19-CV-37-FL. (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20191203e54
Visitors: 15
Filed: Dec. 02, 2019
Latest Update: Dec. 02, 2019
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (DE 22), which has been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling. As an initial matter, the relief sought in the instant motion ("to suspend implementation of any revisions to North Carolina's current congressional election districts as enacted by the General Assembly in Session Law 2016-1," (DE 22 at 1) (emphasis added)), is moot because the congressional districts ena
Summary: ORDER LOUISE W. FLANAGAN , District Judge . This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (DE 22), which has been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling. As an initial matter, the relief sought in the instant motion ("to suspend implementation of any revisions to North Carolina's current congressional election districts as enacted by the General Assembly in Session Law 2016-1," (DE 22 at 1) (emphasis added)), is moot because the congressional districts enac..
More
ORDER
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN, District Judge.
This matter is before the court on plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction (DE 22), which has been fully briefed and is ripe for ruling. As an initial matter, the relief sought in the instant motion ("to suspend implementation of any revisions to North Carolina's current congressional election districts as enacted by the General Assembly in Session Law 2016-1," (DE 22 at 1) (emphasis added)), is moot because the congressional districts enacted in Session Law 2016-1 are not the current congressional election districts. See N.C. Sess. Law 2019-249. Furthermore, and in the alternative, plaintiffs have not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, where state court proceedings addressing recently-enacted congressional districts are ongoing on an expedited basis, and where, in such circumstances, "a federal court must neither affirmatively obstruct state reapportionment nor permit federal litigation to be used to impede it." Growe v. Emison, 507 U.S. 25, 34 (1993); see Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Therefore, plaintiffs' motion is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
