Term: 2017
Docket: 17-333
Benisek v. Lamone
- Pro
17-333 BENISEK V. LAMONE DECISION BELOW: 203 F. Supp.3d 579 JURISDICTION POSTPONED 12/8/2017 QUESTION PRESENTED: This case is a First Amendment challenge to the partisan gerrymander of a single federal congressional district. Plaintiffs allege that state officials responsible for Maryland's 2011 congressional redistricting plan targeted them for vote dilution because of their past support for Republican candidates for public office, violating the First Amendment retaliation doctrine. In earlier proceedings in this case, this Court held that plaintiffs’ retaliation claim is a substantial one, required to be heard by a three-judge district court. On remand, the three- judge court held that plaintiffs' retaliation claim is justiciable. The district court, in a divided opinion, thereafter denied plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, from which this appeal is taken. This appeal presents the following questions: 1. Did the majority err in holding that, to establish an actual, concrete injury in a First Amendment retaliation challenge to a partisan gerrymander, a plaintiff must prove that the gerrymander has dictated and will continue to dictate the outcome of every election held in the district under the gerrymandered map? 2. Did the majority err in holding that the Mt. Healthy burden-shifting framework is inapplicable to First Amendment retaliation challenges to partisan gerrymanders? 3. Regardless of the applicable legal standards, did the majority err in holding that the present record does not permit a finding that the 2011 gerrymander was a but-for cause of the Democratic victories in the district in 2012, 2014, or 2016? LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 1:13-cv-03233-JKB
The case of Benisek v. Lamone in 2017 was a significant U.S Supreme Court case that dealt with the issue of partisan gerrymandering, specifically in Maryland's sixth congressional district. The plaintiffs, who were Republican voters from this district, argued that their First Amendment rights had been violated by the redrawing of electoral boundaries for political advantage (gerrymandering) carried out by Democratic officials. They claimed this action diluted their votes and retaliated against them for their political beliefs. However, the court did not grant an injunction to prevent continued use of the contested map as it found no clear standard to determine when partisan gerrymandering is unconstitutional and also due to timing issues related to proximity to upcoming elections.
In the dissenting opinion for Benisek v. Lamone, Justice Breyer argued that the Court should not have granted a stay in this case because it did not meet the standard requirements for such an action. He noted that stays are typically only granted when there is a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari and if five Justices would vote to reverse judgment below. Additionally, he pointed out that irreparable harm must be likely if a stay is denied. In his view, none of these conditions were met in this case as no public interest was at stake nor any significant private harm demonstrated by plaintiffs who waited six years after Maryland's redistricting plan took effect before seeking preliminary injunction against it.
