Robinson v. Ardoin

Cite as: 601 U. S. ____ (2023) 1
JACKSON, J., concurring
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
_________________
No. 23A281
_________________
PRESS ROBINSON, ET AL. v. KYLE ARDOIN,
LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
_________________
No. 23A282
_________________
EDWARD GALMON, ET AL. v. KYLE ARDOIN,
LOUISIANA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL.
ON APPLICATION FOR STAY
[October 19, 2023]
The applications for stay presented to JUSTICE ALITO and
by him referred to the Court are denied.
JUSTICE JACKSON, concurring in denial of applications for
stay.
I concur in the denial of emergency relief. I write sepa-
rately to emphasize two points.
First, nothing in our decision not to summarily reverse
the Fifth Circuit should be taken to endorse the practice of
issuing an extraordinary writ of mandamus in these or sim-
ilar circumstances.
Second, as we have previously emphasized, this litigation
should be resolved “in advance of the 2024 congressional
elections in Louisiana.” Ardoin v. Robinson, 599 U. S. ___,
___ (2023). To that end, I read the Fifth Circuit’s manda-
mus ruling to require the District Court to delay its reme-
dial hearing only until the Louisiana Legislature has had
sufficient time to consider alternative maps that comply
with the Voting Rights Act. See In re Landry, ___ F. 4th
2 ROBINSON v. ARDOIN
JACKSON, J., concurring
___, 2023 WL 6302186, *4 (CA5, Sept. 28, 2023). The State
has now represented, in its filings before this Court, that
the legislature will not consider such maps while litigation
over the enacted map is pending. See Response to Emer-
gency Application for Stay of Writ of Mandamus in Nos.
23A281, 23A282, p. 16. Therefore, the District Court will
presumably resume the remedial process while the Fifth
Circuit considers the State’s appeal of the preliminary in-
junction.