Gaffney v. Cummings Et Al.

Background

A challenger asked the Supreme Court to pause a federal district court’s decision that struck down Connecticut’s legislative apportionment plan adopted in September 1971. The district court found the plan violated the Equal Protection Clause on March 30, 1972, and the State’s appeal was pending here. The lower court and a Special Master had prepared replacement plans and found there was time to implement them before the fall election.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the Supreme Court should stay (pause) the district court’s order while the appeal is decided. The public order in this file simply shows the Court granted the stay after the application was presented to Justice Marshall; no full majority opinion explaining the grant appears in this text. The dissenting Justice (Douglas) argued the stay should be denied because the party seeking the stay had not shown the lower court was probably wrong or that refusing a stay would cause irreparable administrative harm.

Real world impact

The stay lets Connecticut proceed with its existing apportionment plan, at least temporarily, while the appeal continues. That affects how election officials prepare district maps and run the upcoming fall elections and may influence which candidates and parties compete for state legislative seats. Because this order is a stay, it is not a final decision on the merits and could be reversed by the Court on full review.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas dissented, explaining in plain terms that the applicant failed to meet the burden for a stay and criticizing the State’s justifications for population variances, including partisan balancing and town-boundary preservation.