CASE SUMMARY

In late 2013, a group of Maryland voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the congressional redistricting plan enacted by the Maryland General Assembly after the 2010 census on the grounds it was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The plaintiffs' claims centered around Maryland's Sixth Congressional District, which they alleged was redrawn in 2011 with the purpose of disadvantaging Republican voters and such discrimination violated Article I, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment. In April 2014, a single federal district court judge dismissed the plaintiffs' claims without convening a three-judge panel after finding the plaintiffs had failed to state a claim, a decision that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed before the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In late 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' rulings, stating that federal law clearly requires that a three-judge panel be convened for all challenges to statewide redistricting plans that are not "obviously frivolous" or "essentially fictitious." After finding that the plaintiffs' partisan gerrymandering claims in this case were legally sufficient, the Court remanded the case back to the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland for further proceedings.

Following the remand to the Maryland district court and after the parties had conducted discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion in May 2017 requesting a preliminary injunction that would bar the state from using the plan at issue for the upcoming 2018 elections. The plaintiffs asserted that permitting the state to use the 2011 map, including the alleged gerrymander, would result in "manifest and irreparable injury," and proposed an August deadline for the issuance of any injunctive relief. In August, 2017, the three-judge District Court panel denied the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, finding that the plaintiffs had failed to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claim sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. Furthermore, the District Court, concerned about the correct legal standard to apply, issued a stay on the case pending the Supreme Court's ruling on partisan gerrymandering claims in Gill v. Whitford. The plaintiffs appealed the District Court's decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the Court to vacate the District Court's order and remand for further consideration of whether a preliminary injunction was appropriate. In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a per curiam opinion denying the plaintiffs request and affirming the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction. The Court explained that even if the District Court's findings as to the plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits were set aside, the balance of equities and public interest weighed against their request for a preliminary injunction because the plaintiffs waited six years after filing their complaint to request one and the Court would be unable to ensure the timely completion of a new districting scheme in time for the 2018 elections.

Significance: Federal law requires that a three-judge panel of district court judges be convened for all cases involving a constitutional challenge to statewide congressional redistricting plans unless the claims are "obviously frivolous" or "essentially fictitious."

[Note: This page covers the first stage of litigation in this case, including procedural issues and up to the Supreme Court's ruling on the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction. For information and case materials for the second stage of litigation involving the merits of this case, visit the case page for Benisek v. Lamone II.]

CASE LIBRARY

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland - 1:13-cv-03233

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit - 14-1417 [formerly Benisek v. Mack]

U.S. Supreme Court - 14-990 [formerly Shapiro v. McManus]

U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland - 1:13-cv-03233 [on remand]

U.S. Supreme Court - 17-333

Benisek v. Lamone I (2018)
Tweet This