CASES

NOTABLE CASES

Coalition for Equity and Excellence in Maryland Higher Education v. Maryland Higher Education:

Jon was co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in this case, which involved a constitutional challenge brought on behalf of students and alumni of Maryland’s four historically Black colleges and universities (“HBCU”) against the State of Maryland for its failure to desegregate those HBCUs by dismantling policies and practices from the desegregation era. This case included a six-week liability trial from January to February 2011 and a seven-week remedial trial from January to February 2017. After plaintiffs prevailed at those trials, Maryland appealed. Jon argued before the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The case was resolved when Maryland enacted legislation that provided the HBCUs with $577 of supplemental funding. 

Shelby County v. Holder:

This case involved a facial constitutional challenge against a part of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Congress’s 2006 reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act (“2006 VRARA Reauthorization”). The plaintiff alleged that Congress exceeded its authority under the Fifteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution to reauthorize Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act and the formula determining which jurisdictions would be subject to Section 5 (“coverage formula”). Jon was lead counsel in this case representing Bobby Lee Harris, one of three sets of intervenor-defendants, who joined the United States in defending the constitutional challenge. Jon argued before the district court. The United States Supreme Court, however, by a 5–4 vote, found that Congress exceeded its authority in reauthorizing the same coverage formula which had been in place since 1975

Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona:

Jon was lead counsel of a large counsel team of one of two sets of plaintiffs in a consolidated case (Gonzalez v. Arizona consolidated with Inter Tribal Council of Arizona v. Brewer) challenging certain provisions of Proposition 200, a voter initiative that Arizona voters passed in 2004 that, among other things, created a documentary proof of citizenship requirement for voter registration applicants and a voter identification requirement for in-person voters. In the early phase of the case, the plaintiffs were successful in a motion before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to stay enforcement of Proposition 200’s voter identification provisions before Arizona implemented these provisions for the first time in the November 2006 election. The victory was reversed by the United States Supreme Court in Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006). The district court found against the plaintiffs on all their claims. However, a Ninth Circuit panel, the Ninth Circuit en banc, and the United States Supreme Court by a 7-2 vote, found jn favor of the plaintiffs on one claim: Arizona’s refusal to register applicants for federal elections who used the National Mail Voter Registration Form, which did not require applicants to submit proof of citizenship with their form, violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993. Jon argued before twice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth, first before a three-judge panel and later en banc.

United States v. Charleston County:

This case involved a minority vote-dilution challenge under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to the at-large method of electing the nine-member Charleston County Council, which at the time was elected at-large from residency districts to four-year staggered terms. At the time, Charleston County was one of only three counties in South Carolina that elected a county council at-large, despite having a population that was about one-third Black and having no current or recent Black councilmembers who were the candidates of choice of Black voters. Jon and two colleagues at the Department of Justice represented the United States in the federal district court (separate counsel represented private plaintiffs who filed their complaint after the United States filed suit). Jon drafted and argued a successful obtained partial summary judgment on the three Gingles preconditions—the name coming from Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)—requiring plaintiffs in Section 2 vote-dilution cases to meet threshold requirements in order to proceed to the fact-intensive, totality of circumstances balancing test. This was the first time plaintiffs had ever succeeded on such a motion. After a four-week trial, plaintiffs succeeded in proving that under the totality of the circumstances the County’s at-large system diminished the ability of Black voters to elect candidates of choice. The district court adopted a nine single-member district plan that was first implemented in 2004 and has consistently resulted in the council having at least three Black members (four currently serve). The district court’s decision was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court declined review.

League of Women Voters v. Brunner:

This successful case involved a large-scale effort to reform how Ohio administered elections after voters throughout Ohio encountered substantial impediments in exercising their right to vote in the November 2004 election. The primary claim of Equal Protection came from an idea Jon had to utilize the Supreme Court precedent in Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), in addition to substantive and procedural due process claims. The district court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss but solicited and granted the defendants’ motion for interlocutory appeal because the case involved “largely unexplored uncharted constitutional territory.” League of Women Voters of Ohio v. Blackwell, 2006 WL 1580032 at *2. During the course of discovery, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted the defendants’ motion to stay discovery while the interlocutory appeal was pending. On appeal, the Sixth Circuit affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss as to the Equal Protection and substantive due process claims and reversed as to the substantive due process claims. After resolution of the appeal, the parties negotiated an agreement that brought dramatic changes to Ohio’s election administration including a requirement that counties create and submit to the Secretary of State a comprehensive election plan before statewide elections.

Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College and Student for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina:

These cases were challenges brought by a group opposed to the use of affirmative action in Harvard College’s undergraduate admissions practices. The primary claims are that race conscious admissions are unconstitutional, Harvard’s admissions practices intentionally discriminate against Asian applicants, and Harvard’s practices do not satisfy the standards for race conscious college admissions policies adopted by the United States Supreme Court in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978). The Lawyers’ Committee was the only civil rights organization to participate in both cases through the efforts of Jon and his then-colleague Brenda Shum. The Lawyers’ Committee, along with nonprofit organizations and law firms represented a multiracial group of student applicants, students, and alumni from Harvard and UNC that were interested in maintaining race conscious admissions policies. The students participated in a special amicus status in the Harvard case and as intervenors in the UNC case. The universities and the students were successful in the lower court in both cases. The United States Supreme Court reversed, and in doing so, overruled its prior precedents in all but name. Jon participated at counsel table for the consolidated oral argument at the Supreme Court in support of his colleague David Hinojosa.

Publications

Jon Greenbaum, Ray McClain, Joe Rich, Ezra Rosenberg, and Brenda Shum, “Toward a More Just Justice System: How Open are the Courts to Social Justice Litigation?” (August 2016)

Jon Greenbaum, Alan Martinson, and Sonia Gill, “Shelby County v. Holder: When the Rational Becomes Irrational,” 57 Howard L.J. 811 (Spring 2014).

“Looking Back on 1963 Fifty Years Later,” 40 Human Rights 2, American Bar Association (December 2013) (selected Best Article of ABA Individual Rights and Responsibilities Section)

Jon Greenbaum and Jonah Goldman, “Government-Issued Photo Identification and Proof of Citizenship Requirements for Voters,” in America Votes! A Guide to Modern Election Law and Voting Rights, American Bar Association (March 2008).

James Blacksher, Edward Still, Jon Greenbaum, Nick Quinton, Cullen Brown, and Royal Dumas, “Voting Rights in Alabama: 1982-2006,” 17 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Social Justice 249 (Spring 2008).

Honors and Accomplishments

Received Lawyers’ Committee’s Edwin D. Wolf award for exhibiting outstanding service and commitment to civil rights (2023)
Received Public Justice “Trial Lawyer of the Year” (2017)
Chosen as Wasserstein Fellow by Harvard Law School (2013-14)
Served as Lead Professor for U.S. Voting Rights: A Practical Perspective, a year-long voting rights class at Georgetown University Law Center (2007-2012)
Appeared in various media, including CNN, C-SPAN, Fox News, National Public Radio, New York Times, New Yorker, Los Angeles Times, and Washington Post
Testified and lobbied before Congress, state legislatures, and the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Co-Chaired the Voting Rights Task Force of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (2003-2024)