Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument
Public Court Documents
July 12, 1985
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Thornburg v. Gingles Hardbacks, Briefs, and Trial Transcript. Motion for Leave to Participate in Oral Argument, 1985. 57f52240-d692-ee11-be37-00224827e97b. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/03cb3dc7-6e69-4c8a-b300-49c1e32651cf/motion-for-leave-to-participate-in-oral-argument. Accessed December 04, 2025.
Copied!
IN TTIE SUPREME COURT
OCTOBER
ET AI., APPELI.A}TIS
OF THE I'NITED STATES
TERI'|, 1985
I.ACY II. TEORNBIJRG,
No. 83-1968
RAI.PE GINGLES, ET AL.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
It is hereby certified that all parties required to be
served have been served copies of the MoTIoN FoR LEAVE TO
PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGLMEM by Mall on JIILY 12' 1985' to:
(SEE ATTACIIED SERVICE LIST)
JI,LY 12, 1985
Form OSG-7
APR 1978
DOJ
NO. 83-1968
- SERVICE LIST -
JERRIS LEONARD, Eequlre
KATELEEN EEENAN l{cGUAlt' Esqulre
900 17th. Street ' N.W.
Sulte 1020
Waahlngton, D.C. 20OO7
(Flrst-Clase MalI)
JAMES I{ALLACE' JR., Esqulre
Deputy Attorney General for Legal Affalra
Attorney Generalrs Offlce
North Carollna Department of Justlce
P.O. Box 629
Ralelgh, North Carollna 27602
(Ftret-Claee M811)
JIILIUS CIIAIEERS, Esqulre
LAI{I GUINIER' Eequlre
NMCP Legal Defense & Educatlonal Fund, Inc.
16th. Floor
99 Hudson Street,
New York, New York 10013
(Special DellverY Ma11)
LESLIE J. I{INNER, Esqulre
Ferguson, Watt, Wallas and Adklns' P.A.
951 S. Independence Boulevard
Charlotte, North Carollna 28202
(Ftrst-Class Mall)
DAI{IEL J. POPEO' Esgulre
GE0RGE C. SMITII, Esqulre
Washlngton Legal Foundatton
1705 N Street, N.W.
Washlngtou, D.C. 20036
(Flrst-Class Mal1)
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
ocToBER TERI4 , 1985
No.83-1968
LACY H. THoRNBURG, ET 4!., APPELANTS
v.
RALPH GINGLES, ET AL.
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIPATE IN ORAL ARGUMENT
Pursuant to Rule 38.7 of the RuLes of thls Court, the Actlng
Sol1cltor General, on behalf of the Unlted States, moves for
Ieave to partlclpate ln oral argument ln support of appellants
and that the Unlted States be allowed 10 mlnutes of argument
tlme. Appellants have agreed to cede thls amount of tlme to the
Unlted States and thus Joln thls motlon.
On 0ctober 1, 1984, the Court entered an order lnv1t1ng the
So}lcltor General to express the vlews of the Unlted States 1n
thls case. We responded ln a brlef urglng summary afflrmance on
two questlons and plenary revlew on two others, and the Court
noted probably Jurlsdlctlon on the Latter two questlons on Apr11
29, 1985. The Unlted States has also flled a brlef on the merlts
urglng reversal of the dlstrlct courtrs Judgment.
Thls ls the flrst case 1n thls Court to accord plenary
appellate revlew to a trla1 courtrs flndlng of a v1o1at1on of the
7982 amendment to Sectlon 2 of the Votlng Rlghts Act of L965. The
lssues 1n thls case concern the proper constructlon of amended
Sectlon 2. The Unlted States has the prlmary responslblllty for
,l
t
enforclng the Votlng Rlghts Act and shares wlth prlvate partles
the authorlty to enforce amended Sectlon 2 of the Act. Ehe
Unlted States thus has a substantlal lnterest 1n assurlng that
the Act ls construed ln a manner that advances, rather than
lmpedes, the Actrs obJectlve.
In vlew of the strong federal lnterest ln the lssues
presented ln thls case and the dlfferent perspectlve that the
government w111 brlng to bear on the lssues, w€ belleve that oral
presentatlon of the governmentrs vlews along wlth those of the
state and prlvate partles would be of materlal asslstance to the
Court.
Respectful ly submltted.
CHARLES FRIED
Actlng Sollcltor General
JULY 1985