Case Status: Victory
Davis v. Guam: Chronology
Dave Davis Wins the Day
The Supreme Court denied Guam’s petition for certiorari, in Davis v. Guam, bringing a successful close to CIR’s nine-year fight to overturn the territory’s racially restrictive plebiscite law. With this order, CIR’s recent Ninth Circuit victory will stand in its entirety, and Guam will not be allowed to conduct a vote that discriminates on the basis of race.
Guam Files Reply to CIR’s Opposition Brief
On April 13, Guam replied to CIR’s brief opposing Guam’s Supreme Court appeal. CIR and Dave Davis’ lead counsel at Gibson Dunn argued that the Ninth Circuit correctly found Guam’s plebiscite law was a race-based voting restriction in violation of the Fifteenth Amendment.
CIR to Oppose Guam’s Petition
CIR and Dave Davis’ lead counsel at Gibson Dunn are preparing to file a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in opposition to Guam’s petition for certiorari.
Guam Submits Supreme Court Petition
On December 26, Guam filed a petition for writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court. The appeal was filed by the law firm, Kirkland and Ellis, which offered its services pro-bono.
Justice Elena Kagan Extends Guam’s Petition Deadline
In a surprising turn of events, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan has granted Guam an extension to appeal the Ninth Circuit decision, invalidating Guam’s plebiscite law as racially discriminatory.
Guam Submits Motion for Extension to File Appeal
On October 28, Guam’s recently hired attorney, Michael Phillips, requested an extension of time to file a petition appealing a recent Ninth Circuit decision, invalidating Guam’s plebiscite law. The application, filed with Justice Kagan’s office, came more than a week after the deadline for extension requests.
Guam’s Governor Presses Forward with Controversial Appeal
On October 21, the governor of Guam, Lou Leon Guerrero, announced that she intended to appeal the recent Ninth Circuit decision, which declared Guam’s plebiscite law unconstitutional.
Victory: Ninth Circuit rejects race-exclusive vote in Guam
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously ruled that a planned plebiscite by Guam cannot go forward so long as it limits voting to “native inhabitants” of Guam.
Ninth Circuit hears argument in CIR’s challenge to Guam voting law
On October 10, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit heard oral argument in Davis v. Guam, a case challenging a race-exclusive plebiscite planned by the Government of Guam.
Guam Inexplicably Delays Appeal
Locked in an appeal fight with CIR and Lead Counsel Gibson Dunn, the Government of Guam recently inexplicably declined an offer from the Ninth Circuit to expedite consideration of its appeal.
Victory: Federal Court Declares Guam’s Race Restrictive Plebiscite Unconstitutional
On March 8th, Judge Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood of the District Court of Guam issued a decision in favor of CIR client Arnold Davis. Judge Tydingco-Gatewood’s opinion granted Davis’ Motion for Summary Judgment and held Guam’s race exclusive plebiscite unconstitutional in light of the Fourteenth, and Fifteenth amendments to the Constitution.
Motion For Summary Judgment Filed in Voting Rights Case
CIR plaintiff Arnold Davis is back in the U.S. District Court for the District of Guam to continue his challenge to Guam’s race-exclusive plebiscite.
Ninth Circuit Orders Guam Voting Case Forward
A three judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reinstated CIR client Arnold Davis’ lawsuit challenging race-based voting restrictions on a plebiscite concerning Guam’s future political status.
Challenge to Guam One-Race Plebiscite Moves Forward
A three judge panel heard oral argument in Guam resident Dave Davis’s challenge to that island’s race exclusive plebiscite.
AG Holder dodges questions in Guam
Attorney General Holder arrived on Guam today, but refused to take questions from the press.
Guam replies to CIR suit challenging race plebiscite
In early December, the Government of Guam moved to dismiss CIR’s case challenging its Chamorro-only plebiscite on grounds that plaintiff Dave Davis cannot possibly have been harmed by being excluded from a plebiscite that is advisory in nature.