Filed Date: Nov. 21, 2011
Closed Date: Dec. 30, 2011
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case alleged malapportioned districting in Mississippi in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
On November 21, 2011, seven African-American adults, representing each of Mississippi’s four congressional districts, filed a class-action complaint against the governor of Mississippi, the state Attorney General, the state Secretary of State, the Mississippi Republican Party Executive Committee, the Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee, and the Chairman of the Tunica County, Mississippi Board of Election Commissioners in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. The plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and a declaratory judgment that the existing congressional districting scheme—based on a court-ordered plan stemming from a 2002 case—contained malapportioned districts violating the one person, one vote principle of Article I, Section 2 of and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. They submitted their own plan and requested injunctive relief requiring the 2012 congressional elections to be conducted on their plan.
On November 29, 2011, the Fifth Circuit appointed a three-judge district court to hear the case. On December 7, the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint against all defendants.
On December 19, 2011, the district court panel entered an order consolidating the case with Smith, et al. v. Clark, et al., (now, Smith v. Hosemann), Civil Action No. 3:01-cv-855 WS, in the interest of judicial economy and conflict preclusion. The Court also filed its own proposed redistricting plan and invited input from the parties. No objections to the Court plan were received. On December 30, 2011, the panel entered a final judgment ordering that defendants implement the court-proposed redistricting plan.
In 2020, the Decennial Census rendered the four districts in the court-drawn plan malapportioned. On January 24, 2022, Mississippi governor signed into law a new four-district congressional redistricting statute. That same day, the Mississippi Republican party filed a motion to vacate the December 2011 final judgment. After supplemental briefing, the panel granted in part and denied in part: the panel vacated the December 2011 judgment in its entirety but declined to address the legality or constitutionality of the redistricting bill. The panel found that there had been significant changes in both the factual conditions and law since the court entered final judgment, holding that it was inequitable under Rule 60(b)(5) for the 2011 final judgment to continue to be applied prospectively and to require Mississippi to continue using the map drawn by the court until the state created a congressional redistricting plan that was constitutional and precleared in accordance with the procedures in Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
On June 2, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the final judgment. On June 8, 2022, the plaintiffs also filed a motion to alter the judgment. The panel ultimately denied the plaintiffs’ motions on July 25, 2022. On September 22, 2022, the plaintiffs filed a notice of appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. On February 21, 2023, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal for want of jurisdiction.
The case is closed.
Summary Authors
David Barnes (12/13/2023)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4302144/parties/buck-v-barbour/
Martin, Precious Tyrone (Mississippi)
McDonald, Deborah (Mississippi)
Rhodes, Carroll Edward (Mississippi)
Begley, Samuel L. (Mississippi)
Pizzetta, Harold Edward (Mississippi)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4302144/buck-v-barbour/
Last updated March 11, 2025, 10:18 a.m.
State / Territory: Mississippi
Case Type(s):
Special Collection(s):
Law Firm Antiracism Alliance (LFAA) project
Key Dates
Filing Date: Nov. 21, 2011
Closing Date: Dec. 30, 2011
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiffs were all adult African American citizens and voters in the State of Mississippi.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Unknown
Defendants
Haley Barbour (Jackson), State
Delbert Hosemann (Jackson), State
Mississippi Republican Party Executive Committee (Jackson), Political Party
Mississippi Democratic Party Executive Committee (Jackson), Political Party
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
Constitutional Clause(s):
Special Case Type(s):
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff
Nature of Relief:
Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Source of Relief:
Issues
Voting: