CASE SUMMARY

In late 2013, a group of Maryland voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional redistricting plan as a partisan gerrymander in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Plaintiffs argued the 6th Congressional District was drawn to disadvantage Republican voters in violation of Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution and the 1st Amendment.

  • In April 2014, the federal district court dismissed the case before convening a three-judge panel for failure to state a claim. Plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit which affirmed. Plaintiffs appealed again to the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • On December 8, 2015, SCOTUS reversed on the grounds federal law clearly requires a three-judge panel be convened for all challenges to statewide redistricting plans that are not “obviously frivolous” or “essentially fictitious.” Since plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims were legally sufficient, SCOTUS remanded the case back to the district court for further proceedings.
  • On remand at the district court, plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction to bar the plan from being used in the 2018 election. In August 2017, the three-judge district court panel denied the requested preliminary injunction and, citing confusion over the correct legal standard to apply, stayed the case pending SCOTUS’s decision in a partisan gerrymandering case before it, Gill v. Whitford. Plaintiffs appealed directly to SCOTUS but the Court affirmed the district court’s rulings in June 2018, citing the plaintiffs’ six-year delay in bringing the challenge and lack of time to devise a remedial plan before the election.

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