CASE SUMMARY
In late 2013, a group of Maryland voters filed a federal lawsuit challenging the state’s congressional redistricting plan as a pro-Democrat partisan gerrymander that violated the Article I, § 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the Elections Clause, 1st and 14th Amendments. After an initial SCOTUS decision on procedural issues and subsequent remand back to the district court (Benisek v. Lamone I), the federal district court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs and the defendants appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. SCOTUS consolidated this appeal with another partisan gerrymandering appeal out of North Carolina, Rucho v. Common Cause.
- On June 27, 2019, SCOTUS conclusively held that partisan gerrymandering claims presented nonjusticiable political questions that can’t be decided by federal courts. The Court explained that resolving partisan gerrymandering claims required a “clear, manageable, and politically neutral” standard for review which had not emerged despite decades of litigation on the issue. Having already held in previous cases that partisan considerations when redistricting are unavoidable and constitutionally permissible to some degree, the Court found these claims impose upon federal courts the vague and inherently policy-based task of determining when partisan dominance is “too much” – a determination that they aren’t equipped to make in a legally sound and consistent manner. As further support for their ruling, the Court identified several alternative means to address partisan gerrymandering, including the passage of state constitutional amendments and statutes as several States had already done, or Congressional action via the U.S. Constitution’s Elections Clause.
Significance: Partisan gerrymandering claims are non-justiciable political questions that cannot be decided by federal courts.
[Note: This was the second series of litigation in this case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court; for information and case documents from the earlier stages of this lawsuit, visit the case page for Benisek v. Lamone I (2018).]
CASE LIBRARY
U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland - 1:13-cv-03233
- U.S. Supreme Court Opinion in Benisek v. Lamone I Affirming District Court's Denial of Preliminary Injunction - 6/18/18
- Joint Status Report - 6/29/18
- Plaintiffs' Supplemental Motion for Summary Judgment - 7/13/18
- Supplemental Brief in Support of Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment - 7/13/18
- Order - 8/30/18
- Order Lifting Stay - 9/7/18
- Defendants' Motion to Exclude Portions of the Declaration of Micah D. Stein in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Summary Judgment Brief and Related Material - 9/11/18
- Plaintiffs' Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Exclude Portions of the Declaration of Micah D. Stein - 9/24/18
- Reply in Support of Motion to Exclude Portions of the Declaration of Micah D. Stein in Support of Plaintiffs' Supplemental Summary Judgment Brief and Related Material - 9/28/18
- Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Exclude Portions of the Declaration of Micah D. Stein - 10/2/18
- Memorandum Opinion - 11/7/18
- Judgment - 11/7/18
- Order Regarding Notice of Contemplated Appointment of Special Master - 11/13/18
- Notice of Appeal - 11/15/18
- Consent Motion to Stay - 11/15/18
- Plaintiffs' Statement of Conditional Consent to a Discretionary Stay Pending Appeal - 11/15/18
- Order Granting in Part Consent Motion to Stay - 11/16/18
- Judgment - 7/29/19
- Order - 8/9/19
U.S. Supreme Court - 18-726 [139 S.Ct. 2484]
- Jurisdictional Statement - 12/3/18
- Joint Appendix - 12/6/18
- Appellees' Motion to Affirm - 12/11/18
- Appellants' Brief Opposing Motion to Affirm - 12/18/18
- Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amicus Curiae and Brief of Amicus Curiae Representative-Elect David Trone in Support of Appellants - 12/19/18
- Brief for Appellants - 2/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae David Orentlicher Supporting Neither Party - 2/11/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Representative David Trone in Support of Appellants - 2/12/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Bernard Grofman and Ronald Keith Gaddie in Support of Neither Party - 2/12/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae The Wisconsin State Senate and Wisconsin State Assembly in Support of Appellants - 2/12/19
- Brief for Appellees - 3/4/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Robert Lee Stone, Jr., and John Harvard Lomax, Jr. in Support of Appellees - 3/6/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Stephen M. Shapiro in Support of Appellees - 3/6/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae First Amendment and Election Law Scholars in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U. School of Law in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Bipartisan Group of Current and Former Members of the House of Representatives in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Constitutional Accountability Center in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Senator Sheldon Whitehouse in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Political Science Professors in Support of Appellees and Affirmance - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae The American Jewish Committee Supporting Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Constitutional Law Scholars Michael C. Dorf, et al., in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Governors Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lawrence Joseph Hogan, Jr. in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae The American Civil Liberties Union, et al., in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., et al., in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Historians in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae International Municipal Lawyers Association, et al., in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Anti-Defamation League, et al., in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Professor Michael Kang in Support of Appellees - 3/8/19
- Brief of Amici Curiae Mathematicians, Law Professors, and Students in Support of Appellees and Affirmance - 3/8/19
- Reply Brief for Appellants - 3/15/19
- Brief of Amicus Curiae Floyd Abrams Institute for Freedom of Expression in Support of Appellees - 3/18/19
- Oral Argument Transcript - 3/26/19
- Opinion - 6/27/19