Case: Johnson v. Bredesen

3:08-cv-00187 | U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee

Filed Date: Feb. 25, 2008

Closed Date: 2008

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On February 25, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Plaintiffs are all Tennessee residents and convicted felons. Plaintiffs sought to invalidate those portions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-202 that condition the restoration of voting rights for people previously convicted of "infamous crimes" upon their payment of certain legal financial obligations, namely restitution and child support. Plaintiffs …

On February 25, 2008, Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee, Nashville Division. Plaintiffs are all Tennessee residents and convicted felons. Plaintiffs sought to invalidate those portions of Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-29-202 that condition the restoration of voting rights for people previously convicted of "infamous crimes" upon their payment of certain legal financial obligations, namely restitution and child support. Plaintiffs assert that this statute, by denying the vote to those who have not satisfied certain legal financial obligations, violates their fundamental right to vote and discriminates among citizens on the basis of wealth. More specifically, Plaintiffs claim that the statute at issue violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Twenty-Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Ex Post-Facto Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, the Privileges and Immunities Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions, and the Due Process Clauses of the United States and Tennessee Constitutions. Plaintiffs named as Defendants those state and county officials, in their official capacity, responsible for the implementation and enforcement of the state statutory scheme as it pertains to voter eligibility and registration. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, nominal damages, attorney's fees and costs.

On June 23, 2008, the District Court (Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.) denied the county officials' motions to dismiss. On July 28, 2008, Plaintiffs amended their complaint. Thereafter, both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. On September 22, 2008, the District Court (Judge Thomas A. Wiseman, Jr.) granted Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the constitutional challenges contained in the Amended Complaint, finding that Plaintiffs' constitutional challenges lacked merit.

Plaintiffs appealed to the Sixth Circuit. On October 28, 2010, in a published opinion, the Court of Appeals (Judge Deborah L. Cook) affirmed the District Court's decision.

On May 24, 2011, the Supreme Court of the United States denied cert.

Summary Authors

Xin Chen (6/22/2011)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4752415/parties/friedmann-v-bredesen/


Judge(s)

Cook, Deborah L. (Ohio)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Abudu, Nancy G. (Georgia)

Bradley, Neil (Georgia)

Attorney for Defendant

Bussell, Allison L. (Tennessee)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Ambrosius, Paul W. (Tennessee)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:08-cv-00187

Docket

May 24, 2011

May 24, 2011

Docket
1

3:08-cv-00187

Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Norminal Monetary Damages

Feb. 25, 2008

Feb. 25, 2008

Complaint
44

3:08-cv-00187

Memorandum Opinion

June 23, 2008

June 23, 2008

Order/Opinion
57

3:08-cv-00187

Amended Complaint for Declaratory Relief, Injunctive Relief, and Norminal Monetary Damages

July 28, 2008

July 28, 2008

Complaint
59

3:08-cv-00187

Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings as to the Constitutional Challenges Contained in the Amended Complaint, by Phil Bredesen, Brook Thompson, and Riley Darnell

Aug. 1, 2008

Aug. 1, 2008

Pleading / Motion / Brief
69

3:08-cv-00187

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Support of Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings or in the Alternative Motion for Partial Summary Judgment

Aug. 22, 2008

Aug. 22, 2008

Pleading / Motion / Brief
77

3:08-cv-00187

Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Kim Buckley's Motion for Summary Judgment

Sept. 3, 2008

Sept. 3, 2008

Pleading / Motion / Brief
85

3:08-cv-00187

Memorandum Opinion

Sept. 22, 2008

Sept. 22, 2008

Order/Opinion

579 F.Supp.2d 1044

00615495511

08-06377

Brief Amicus-Curiae Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law in Support of Plaintiffs-Appellants and Reversal

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

April 23, 2009

April 23, 2009

Pleading / Motion / Brief
006110772987

08-06377

6th Circuit Opinion

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

Oct. 28, 2010

Oct. 28, 2010

Order/Opinion

624 F.3d 742

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4752415/friedmann-v-bredesen/

Last updated Dec. 18, 2024, 7:12 p.m.

Docket sheet not available via the Clearinghouse.

Case Details

State / Territory: Tennessee

Case Type(s):

Election/Voting Rights

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: Feb. 25, 2008

Closing Date: 2008

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Plaintiffs are all Tennessee residents and convicted felons, who, according to state law, were denied the right to vote for failing to satisfy certain legal financial obligations.

Plaintiff Type(s):

City/County Plaintiff

State Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

ACLU Affiliates (any)

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Governor of the State of Tennessee, State

Coordinator of Elections, State

Secretary of State of Tennessee, State

Administrator of Elections for Shelby County, County

Administrator of Elections for Madison County, County

Administrator of Elections for Davidson County, County

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

State law

Constitutional Clause(s):

Due Process

Ex Post Facto

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Defendant

Nature of Relief:

None

Source of Relief:

None

Issues

Voting:

Voter qualifications