Case: Jett v. Nardo

This is a challenge to the legality of considering constitutional changes to the congressional redistricting process in the Virginia state legislature's 2024 special session. 

On October 31, 2025, clerks representing three Virginia counties (collectively, the "Plaintiffs") filed a complaint against the Clerk and Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates and the Clerk and President of the Senate of Virginia (collectively, the "Defendants") in Virginia state trial court. Plaintiffs, represented by legal counsel, claimed Defendants violated the Virginia Constitution and the Annotated Code of Virginia by improperly reconvening the Virginia General Assembly's 2024 special session, passing legislation that was outside the scope of the special session, and failing to follow the process for adopting constitutional amendments. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that the 2024 special session had concluded and that any legislation passed in the October 2025 meeting of the 2024 special session would be considered void. Plaintiffs also sought an immediate temporary restraining order prohibiting the Defendants from taking any actions to advance House Joint Resolution 6007.

The 2024 special session was originally called in April 2024, with the General Assembly meeting in May 2024 to address budgetary concerns. The session did not formally adjourn following the conclusion of that meeting. The General Assembly then met and adjourned for its annual session in January 2025. Following the conclusion of the 2025 annual session, the General Assembly reconvened the 2024 special session in February and October 2025. During the October 2025 meeting, the General Assembly passed House Joint Resolution 6007, which would amend the Constitution of Virginia and grant lawmakers the authority to redraw congressional districts. In addition to alleging that the resolution was passed during an improper session, Plaintiffs alleged that the General Assembly did not follow the correct process for presenting proposed constitutional amendments to the Virginia electorate.

One of the Defendants filed a response on November 3, 2025, claiming that the claims were not justiciable under the separation of powers doctrine, that Plaintiffs lacked standing, and that Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate entitlement to extraordinary relief, among other defenses.

On November 5, 2025, Judge Tracy Thorne-Begland held that the Plaintiffs lacked standing, as the perceived harm — the posting of proposed constitutional amendments journaled by the Clerk of the House of Delegates — had not yet occurred. Further, Judge Thorne-Begland found that the matter was not justiciable because the adoption of constitutional amendments is within the power of the legislature, not the courts.

On November 6, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for nonsuit, which was granted by the court on November 17.