Benisek v. Lamone

Benisek v. Lamone
Docket number: 17-333
Term: 2017-2018
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Important dates
Argument: March 28, 2018 Decided: June 18, 2018
Court membership
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Clarence Thomas • Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Stephen Breyer • Samuel Alito • Sonia Sotomayor • Elena Kagan • Neil Gorsuch

Benisek v. Lamone is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 18, 2018, which held that the plaintiffs, seven Republican voters in Maryland, failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted barring enforcement of a new congressional district map in the state. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court's decision to deny the plaintiffs an injunction.

On December 8, 2017, the court added the case to its docket for the term, consenting to a hearing on the merits. Oral argument in the case took place on March 28, 2018. The judgment under review came from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.^[1]

This article contains background information on the redistricting process in Maryland, details on the history of the case, and information on the questions presented to the Supreme Court.

Background

Redistricting process

See also: Redistricting in Maryland

Redistricting is the process by which new congressional and state legislative district boundaries are drawn. Each of Maryland's eight United States Representatives and 188 state legislators are elected from political divisions called districts. District lines are redrawn every 10 years following completion of the United States census. The federal government stipulates that districts must have nearly equal populations and must not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity.^[2][3][4][5]

According to Article 1, Section 4, of the United States Constitution, the states and their legislatures have primary authority in determining the "times, places, and manner" of congressional elections. Congress may also pass laws regulating congressional elections. Article 1, Section 2, of the United States Constitution stipulates that congressional representatives be apportioned to the states on the basis of population. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. Each state is allotted a portion of these seats based on the size of its population relative to the other states. Consequently, a state may gain seats in the House if its population grows or lose seats if its population decreases, relative to populations in other states. In 1964, the United States Supreme Court ruled in Wesberry v. Sanders that the populations of House districts must be equal "as nearly as practicable." The equal population requirement for congressional districts is strict. According to All About Redistricting, "Any district with more or fewer people than the average (also known as the 'ideal' population), must be specifically justified by a consistent state policy. And even consistent policies that cause a 1 percent spread from largest to smallest district will likely be unconstitutional."^{[6][7][8][9][10]}

In Maryland, the primary authority to draw both congressional and state legislative district lines rests with the state legislature. The governor submits a state legislative redistricting proposal (an advisory commission appointed by the governor assists in drafting this proposal). The state legislature may pass its own plan by joint resolution, which is not subject to gubernatorial veto. If the legislature fails to approve its own plan, the governor's plan takes effect. Congressional lines are drawn solely by the legislature and may be vetoed by the governor.^[11]

Case history

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.^[11]

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.^[11]

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.^[11][12]

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."^{[11][12][13][14]}

On June 8, 2015, the high court agreed to hear the case. The following was the question before the court:^[15]

“	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).[16]	”
—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:^[17]

“	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.[16]	”
—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.^{[18][19][20][21][1]}

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:^[22]

“

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.[16]

”

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. On June 27, 2019, the high 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.^[23][24]

Petitioners' challenge

The appellants in the case (seven Republican voters: John Benisek, Edmund Cueman, Jeremiah DeWolf, Charles W. Eyler, Jr., Kat O'Connor, Alonnie L. Ropp, and Sharon Strine) allege that "state officials responsible for Maryland's 2011 redistricting plan targeted them for vote dilution because of their past support for Republican candidates for public office, violating the First Amendment retaliation doctrine." The First Amendment protects individuals against retaliation from public officials for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech (which may take the form of political party affiliation, voting history, etc.).^[25]

Questions presented

Mt. Healthy City Board of Education v. Doyle is a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1977. The jurisdictional statement filed in Benisek v. Lamone notes that "under Mt. Healthy ... the burden is on the defendants to prove the positive (there was an alternate, lawful explanation for the challenged action) rather than on the plaintiffs to prove the negative (there was no alternate, lawful explanation)."

According to the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School, the "but-for test is a test commonly used in both tort law and criminal law to determine actual causation. The test asks, 'but for the existence of X, would Y have occurred?' If the answer is yes, then factor X is an actual cause of result Y."^[26]

Audio

• Audio of oral argument:^[27]
  

Transcript

• Transcript of oral argument:^[28]

Outcome

Decision

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:^[22]

“

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.[16]

”

The opinion

Aftermath

The following is a sample of reactions to the court's rulings in Benisek v. Lamone and Gill v. Whitford, another partisan gerrymandering case decided on June 18, 2018:

“	The case [Gill v. Whitford] is very much still alive. We now have the opportunity to demonstrate the real and concrete harms that result from partisan gerrymandering in the lower court, the same court that struck down the Wisconsin mapping scheme to begin with. When legislators draw voting maps to favor one party over another and to stay in power, voters no longer have a voice in the political process. Extreme partisan gerrymandering is increasingly getting worse – damaging our democracy and eroding voters’ confidence in our system. We will continue advancing efforts, in this case and others as well as through the political process, to end this practice and safeguard every citizen’s fundamental right to vote and have it count.[29][16]	”
—Paul Smith, vice president of litigation and strategy at Campaign Legal Center (CLC), who argued the case before the court on behalf of the plaintiffs

“	Here's the problem: the Court made clear that an individual's claim of vote dilution [in Gill v. Whitford] cannot be based on the fact that maps have been drawn in a way that diminishes the statewide prospects for that voter's preferred political party. The majority held that the plaintiffs interest 'in their collective representation in the legislature,' and in influencing the legislature’s overall 'composition and policymaking' does not constitute "an individual and personal injury of the kind required for Article III stand­ing. If that's true, then plaintiffs are going to have to show some constitutional violation in the drawing of their individual district and that harm cannot be inferred from a statewide impact. While Justice Kagan's decision suggests that demonstrating that another set of statewide maps would have resulted in more 'balanced' districts might do the trick, conferring standing on plaintiffs whose districts 'could be' made more competitive, Chief Justice Roberts decision suggests otherwise. The Court punted, but it may have hit the coffin corner.[30][16]	”
—Rick Esenberg, president and general counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, which filed amicus briefs in the case supporting the constitutionality of the existing maps

“	The outcomes in Gill and Benisek are obviously a major disappointment for voting rights advocates. But these rulings don’t extinguish hope for a solution; Kagan’s concurring opinion lights a path forward that the Wisconsin plaintiffs should follow. It’s notable, though, that Kennedy declined to join her opinion, indicating that the justice may have given up hope on identifying a standard to help the court distinguish especially bad gerrymanders. Without Kennedy’s vote, opponents of political redistricting may well be doomed. On the other hand, Kennedy (along with Roberts and Alito) declined to dismiss Gill outright, suggesting that the justice might welcome another challenge. All in all, Gill and Benisek leave advocates roughly where they started: feeling around in the dark for a brilliant solution to this enduring problem that can garner five votes on the Supreme Court.[31][16]	”
—Mark Joseph Stern, for Slate

“	[The decision in Gill v. Whitford] is a punt in the sense that the plaintiffs will get another shot and that the court hasn’t definitively closed off the idea of judicial intervention in partisan gerrymandering. But Gill makes the effort much more difficult[.] ... As it should. Redistricting is a political process, with very few crossovers to the judiciary, and those are limited to issues involving immutable characteristics. It would have been preferable for the court to throw the case out entirely, but it appears that Chief Justice John Roberts wanted the court to remain as unanimous on this decision as possible. The resulting precedent accomplishes much of the same effect, however. It will be difficult for the court to take its other partisan gerrymandering cases and apply this standard to any other outcome than dismissal.[32][16]	”
—Ed Morrisey, for Hot Air

“	Alex Bickel would be proud of SCOTUS in today's gerrymandering decisions. By invoking procedural limits (like standing), the Court is causing a clarification of the merits of the claims plaintiffs are (and potentially will) make, leading to better decisions. Good for democracy.[33][16]	”
—Ned Foley, Charles W. Ebersold and Florence Whitcomb Ebersold Chair in Constitutional Law at the Ohio State University

“	Redistricting punt means decisions still possible in 2019. But more delay means more problems. Decision now means guidance for 2021 [without] redrawing [maps]. Decision in 2021 means redrawing 1000s of districts.[34][16]	”
—Justin Levitt, Professor of Law at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles

See also

• 

• 

• 

Footnotes

v • e Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States
Active justices	Chief justice: Roberts Associate justices: Alito • Barrett • Gorsuch • Jackson • Kagan • Kavanaugh • Sotomayor • Thomas
Senior justices	Breyer • Kennedy • O'Connor • Souter
Former chief justices	Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren • White
Former associate justices	Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Gray • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • W. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • Murphy • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Woods