Correspondence from Guinier to Nelson; Application for Leave to File Brief for Appellees in Excess of the Page Limits; Application for Leave to File Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae in Excess of the Page Limits; Order

    l-

L.j /l<
August 27, 1985

I'Is. Sandy Nelson
Assistant Clerk
Office of the C1erk
Supreme Court of the Unit,ed States
Washington, D.C. 20543

Dear Ms. Nelson:

I enclose an Application for Leave to file a brief

for appellees in excess of the page limitations in the

above case. I understand you wiII present it to the Chief

Justice.
Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Very truIY Yours,
/'(/' ,-/ / t

C. Lani Guinier
Counsel for APPellees

CLc/gt
Encs.
cc: Jerris Leonard, Esg.

James WaIIace, Esq.

NtNETy N|NE HUDSON STREET . (212) 219-1900 o fr/EW YORK, N.Y 10013



IN THE SUPREIT,IE COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER TERM 1985

LACY H. THORNBURGH, Et A1. , APPELLANTS

v.

RALPH GINGLES, Et dI., APPELLEES

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF

NORTH CAROLINA

APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF
FOR APPELLEES IN EXCESS OF THE

PAGE LI}IITS

Pursuant to RuIe 33.4 0f the Rules of this court,

counsel for Appellees Ralph Ging}es, €t 41., resPectfully

applies for leave to file a Brief for Appellees twenty-five

pages in excess of the 110 pages provided for such briefs

produced by photostatic process under Rules 33.3 and 34.3.

The Solicitor General was granted in this case leave

to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Appellants in

excess of the page limits. (Application for Leave and Order

granting application attached). As the Solicitor General

stated in his Application, this is the first case in this

Court to accord plenary review to a district courtrs finding

of a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as

amended in L982. The brief fited by the Solicitor General

addresses both questions that the Court has decided to re-

view. In addition, the Solicitor General raises issues

based on his interpretation of the legislative history of

the statute as amended. Appellees do not believe that we

can address the new issues raised by the Solicitor General,



and the arguments'of Appellants on the merits, in a manner

that will be of full assistance to the court in the page

limit, applicable. Appellees are responding to a total of 84

pagesofprintedbriefs,whenthebriefsofAppellantsand
the solicitor General are added together. we therefore

respectfullyrequestthatatotalof135typescriptpages
(65 printed pages) be allowed in our brief'

RespectfullY submitted,

August 27 , 1985. . LANI INIER

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Iherebycertifythatlhaveservedcopiesofthe

foregoing Application for Leave to File Brief for Appellees

in Excess of 1lhe Page Limits on the parties by depositing

the same in the united states mail, first class mail pre-

pared, addressed as follows:

James Wallace , Jx -, Esq.
AttorneY GePeraI's Office
North Clrolina Department of Justice
P.O. Box 629
Raleigh, North Carolina 27602

Charles Fried, Esq-
Acting Solicitor General

' Unite6 States Department of Justice
Washington, D.C.20530

Jerris Leonard, Esg.
900 ITth Street, N.W.
Suite I020
Washington, D.C. 200Q7 7'

Dated: August 27 , 1985.

C,
/)a) Yt

a-nt-/=:FaaaW

n./ ll
L " f&n^n- ./-Jnn-""+]'t-

Counsel for APPellees



o
Ct

'l
I

ii

l

C\

No.83-1958

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

ooTOBER tERI{, 19U5

LACY H. THORNBURGH, ET AL., APPELLANTS

RALPH GINGLES, ET AL.

V.

ON APPEAL FROM THE
FOR THE EASTERN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

APpLICATTON FOR LEA\rE T0 FILE B.ElqF J'oR..- 
THE UNITED STATES AS AIvIICUS CURIAE

IN EXCESS OF TI{E PAGE LIIqITS

pursuant to Rule 33.4 of the Ru1es of thls Court, the Acting

Solleitor Genera1, oo behalf of the Unlted states, respectfully

applles for leave to flle a Brlef for the Unlteo ,States as Amlcus

CurLae ln tnls case ln excess of the 3O pages provlded for such

brlefs under RuIe 36.2. We request that 35 pages be allowed'

In thls case, the dlstrtct couri lnvalldated a state

redlstrlctlng plan on the ground that LL vlolateo amendeci

sectlon 2 of the votlng Rlghts Act of L965' \2 u's'c' L973' 0n

0ctobetr I, 1984, the Court entereC an oroer invltlng the

sollclior Generai to fl1e a brlef expresslng the vlews of the

'lnj.ted States ln thls case. We responded w1f,l ?. b:i:l'-lrging

Sixnnary afflrnance on two questlons and pi'enary revlew on two

others, anci the court noted probable Jurlsdlc!lon on ihe latter

lwo questlons on APrII 2q, 1985'



o
t

o
C]

-2-

fhls ls the flrst case 1n thls Court to accord plenary

revlew to a dlstrlct courtts flndlng of a vlo1atlon of amended

Sectlon 2 of the Votlng Rlghts Act. The Unlted States wlshes to
flIe a brlef as amlcus curlae ln thls case, addresslng both

questlons that the Court has declded to revlew, In vlew of the

lntrlcate questlons lnvoIved, however, we do not belleve that we

can address the merlts 1n a manner that w111 be of full
asslstance to the Court ln the page 1lm1t appllcable under thls
courtrs Rule 36.2. we therefore respectfurly request that a

total of 35 pages be allowed ln our brlef reratlng to thls
case. We belleve that that wlII be sufflclent. However, because

we w111 flle our brlef ln typescrlpt, 1t 1s posslbre that our

prlnted brlef may exceed our estlmatlon. If lt does, w€

respectfully request that we be allowed to flle our prlnted brlef
even lf lt exceeds the 35 pages we have estlmated.

Respectfully submltted.

CHARLES FRIED
Actlng Sollcltor General

JULY rg85



Supreme @ourt of tfu @nrteb Stated

JVo. A-18 (83_1968)

r.'

LACY H. THORNBURG, ET AL.,

AppelIants,

V.

RALPH GINGLES, ET AL.

ORDER

uPON C0NSTDERATT0N of Lhe apprlcatlon.of the Actlng
Solielt,or General,

rr rs ORDERED tha! the application for reave to fire
the brief amlcus curlae ln excess of the page linitatlon ts granted
provided t,hat the brlef does not exceed 35 pages.

/s/ Wlnnen E, Buneen
Chlef Justice of the Unlted States

DaLed rhis 9rn

day of July, 1985.