Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Lamone v. Benisek

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Lamone v. Benisek
Term: 2018-2019
Important Dates
Decided: June 27, 2019
Outcome
Vacated and remanded
Vote
5-4
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan

Lamone v. Benisek is a case that appeared before the Supreme Court of the United States during the court's 2018-2019 term. The case under review came from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. This was the continuation of a case that was originally brought before the high court as Benisek v. Lamone in the 2017-2018 term.[1]

On June 27, 2019, the court issued a joint ruling in this case and Rucho v. Common Cause, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See below for more information.

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: Seven Republicans, all of whom lived and voted in Maryland's Sixth Congressional District prior to its reconfiguration in the 2010 redistricting cycle, claimed that state lawmakers altered the boundaries of the 6th District in order to dilute the impact of Republican votes. The plaintiffs alleged that this action constituted a violation of their First Amendment associational rights. The United States District Court for the District of Maryland ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on November 7, 2018.
  • The issue: The appeal was brought to the U.S. Supreme Court by the defendants, who presented the following questions to the high court: "(1) Are the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court unmanageable? (2) Did the three-judge district court err when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as 'undisputed' evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary

    objections? (3) Did the three-judge district court abuse its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting?"

  • The outcome: On June 27, 2019, the court ruled 5-4 that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.

    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • June 27, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court decision
    • March 26, 2019: Oral argument before the U.S. Supreme Court
    • January 4, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case
    • December 3, 2018: Jurisdictional statement filed with the U.S. Supreme Court
    • November 7, 2018: United States District Court for the District of Maryland struck down the state's congressional district plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander

    Background

    See also: Benisek v. Lamone

    On October 4, 2011, the governor's advisory redistricting commission released a proposal for new congressional districts. Governor Martin O'Malley (D) amended this plan and submitted his final proposal to the state legislature on October 15, 2011. The state legislature made further amendments and approved a final congressional map with a three-fifths majority vote. On October 20, 2011, O'Malley signed the map into law. The map was subject to a series of court challenges.[2]

    A referendum on the new maps was added to the November 6, 2012, ballot in Maryland. Voters approved the maps as drawn by the legislature.[2]

    On November 5, 2013, opponents of the state's newly approved congressional district map filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The plaintiffs alleged that the new district lines constituted a partisan gerrymander in favor of Democrats. The plaintiffs further requested that a three-judge panel be convened to hear the case. On April 8, 2014, Judge James Bredar rejected the plaintiffs' claim. The United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit affirmed Bredar's decision on November 12, 2014.[2][3]

    On February 10, 2015, the case was appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. The plaintiffs argued that Bredar's decision violated the Three Judge Court Act (28 U.S.C. § 2284), which requires a three-judge district court panel to be convened for cases challenging the constitutionality of congressional or state legislative redistricting plans. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Goosby v. Osser that a single-judge panel will suffice if the claim presented to the court is considered to be "insubstantial."[2][3][4][5]

    On June 8, 2015, the high court agreed to hear the case. The following was the question before the court:[6]

    “ Whether a single-judge district court may determine that a complaint covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is insubstantial, and that three judges therefore are not required, not because it concludes that the complaint is wholly frivolous, but because it concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).[7] ”
    —SCOTUSblog

    On December 8, 2015, the court issued its ruling in the case, reversing the decision of the Fourth Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. The unanimous opinion of the court was delivered by Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the following:[8]

    “ Because the present suit is indisputably 'an action ... challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts,' the District Judge was required to refer the case to a three-judge court. ... Respondents' alternative argument, that the District Judge should have dismissed the petitioners' claim as 'constitutionally insubstantial' under Goosby v. Osser is unpersuasive.[7] ”
    —Justice Antonin Scalia

    In February 2017, a three-judge panel was named to hear the case. On August 24, 2017, the panel voted 2-1 to deny the plaintiffs' request for an injunction against the maps. The panel also ordered a stay on the proceedings pending a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States in Gill v. Whitford. The plaintiffs petitioned the Supreme Court to expedite the case. On September 13, 2017, the high court denied this request. However, on December 8, 2017, the high court announced that it would hear the case during the 2017-2018 term.[9][10][11][12][13]

    On June 18, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a per curiam ruling in Benisek v. Lamone, affirming the district court decision that had denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of a challenged congressional district map. The court determined that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction were not granted. The court wrote the following in its unsigned opinion:[14]

    “ We now note our jurisdiction and review the District Court's decision for an abuse of discretion, keeping in mind that a preliminary injunction, as 'an extraordinary remedy never awarded as of right.' As a matter of equitable discretion, a preliminary injunction does not follow as a matter of course from a plaintiff's showing of a likelihood of success on the merits. Rather, a court must also consider whether the movant has shown 'that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.'

    Plaintiffs made no such showing below. Even if we assume—contrary to the findings of the District Court—that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claims, the balance of equities and the public interest tilted against their request for a preliminary injunction.[7]

    		”

    On November 7, 2018, a three-judge panel of the United States District Court for the District of Maryland struck down the congressional after finding that it constituted an illegal partisan gerrymander against Republicans. The court ruled unanimously that Maryland's congressional map "violates the First Amendment by burdening both the plaintiffs' representational rights and associational rights based on their party affiliation and voting history." The court prohibited the state from using the map in future congressional elections. The defendants appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of the United States, which agreed to take up the case and scheduled oral argument for March 26, 2019.[1]

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[15]

    Questions presented:
         		1. Are the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court unmanageable? 2. Did the three-judge district court err when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as 'undisputed' evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections? 3. Did the three-judge district court abuse its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting?

    Outcome

    On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court issued a joint ruling in this case and Rucho v. Common Cause, finding that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions that fall beyond the jurisdiction of the federal judiciary. The high court ruled 5-4, with Chief Justice John Roberts penning the majority opinion, joined by Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. Associate Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. The high court remanded the case to the lower court with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. See below for more information.[16]

    Opinion

    Chief Justice John Roberts penned the majority opinion, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. In the court's opinion, Roberts noted that the Framers, "aware of electoral districting problems … [assigned] the issue to the state legislatures, expressly checked and balanced by the Federal Congress, with no suggestion that the federal courts had a role to play." He went on to say, "To hold that legislators cannot take their partisan interests into account when drawing district lines would essentially countermand the Framers' decision to entrust districting to political entities."[16]

    Roberts went on to address the assumptions underlying partisan gerrymandering claims:[16]

    “ Partisan gerrymandering claims rest on an instinct that groups with a certain level of political support should enjoy a commensurate level of political power and influence. Explicitly or implicitly, a districting map is alleged to be unconstitutional because it makes it too difficult for one party to translate statewide support into seats in the legislature. But such a claim is based on a 'norm that does not exist' in our electoral system—'statewide elections for representatives along party lines.'" Roberts also wrote, "[Federal] courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so.[7] ”

    In regards to various tests proposed to assess such claims, Roberts said, "[None] meets the need for a limited and precise standard that is judicially discernible and manageable. And none provides a solid grounding for judges to take the extraordinary step of reallocating political power and influence between political parties."[16]

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Elena Kagan penned a dissent, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor. Kagan wrote the following in her dissent:[16]

    “ The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process, to join with others to advance political beliefs, and to choose their political representatives. In so doing, the partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people.[7] ”

    Kagan went on to dispute the majority's assessment of manageable standards for evaluating claims: "The majority’s abdication comes just when courts across the country, including those below, have coalesced around manageable judicial standards to resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. Those standards satisfy the majority’s own benchmarks. They do not require—indeed, they do not permit—courts to rely on their own ideas of electoral fairness, whether proportional representation or any other. And they limit courts to correcting only egregious gerrymanders, so judges do not become omnipresent players in the political process."[16]

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[17]

    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[18]

    See also

    External links

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 SCOTUSblog, "Lamone v. Benisek," accessed January 28, 2019
    2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 All About Redistricting, 'Maryland," accessed April 30, 2015
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Brennan Center for Justice, "Supreme Court to Wade into Partisan Gerrymandering," June 8, 2015
    4. ↑ Jurist, "Supreme Court to rule on three-judge rule for redistricting cases," June 8, 2015
    5. ↑ United States Code, "Title 28, Part VI, Chapter 155, Section 2284," accessed June 12, 2015
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Shapiro v. Mack," accessed June 12, 2015
    7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Shapiro v. McManus: Decision," December 8, 2015
    9. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Joint Motion to Extend Deadlines for Certain Expert Witness Disclosures," May 2, 2017
    10. ↑ United States District Court for the District of Maryland, "Benisek v. Lamone: Memorandum," August 24, 2017
    11. ↑ Brennan Center for Justice, "Benisek v. Lamone," August 24, 2017
    12. ↑ Election Law Blog, "Supreme Court Won't Hurry Consideration of Maryland Partisan Gerrymandering Case," September 13, 2017
    13. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Court adds seven new cases to merits docket," December 8, 2017
    14. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Benisek v. Lamone: Decision," June 18, 2018
    15. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Lamone v. Benisek: Jurisdictional Statement," December 2018
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 16.2 16.3 16.4 16.5 Supreme Court of the United States, "Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek: Opinion of the Court," June 27, 2019
    17. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Lamone v. Benisek, argued March 26, 2019
    18. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Lamone v. Benisek, argued March 26, 2019
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lamone_v._Benisek&oldid=9117278"