KARCHER, SPEAKER, NEW JERSEY ASSEMBLY, Et Al. v. DAGGETT Et Al.
Headline: Temporary stay lets New Jersey keep its 1982 congressional map while the appeal proceeds, blocking the lower court’s order and delaying any court-drawn districts that would replace the legislature’s plan.
Holding: The Circuit Justice granted a stay of the District Court’s injunction, allowing New Jersey to use its 1982 congressional plan during the appeal because applicants face irreparable harm and the case likely merits Supreme Court review.
- Allows New Jersey to use the legislature’s 1982 congressional map during appeal.
- Delays any court-drawn redistricting until the Supreme Court decides the appeal.
- Forces the state legislature to act quickly or risk a court-imposed plan.
Summary
Background
Applicants are the Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, the President of the New Jersey Senate, and eight U.S. House members from New Jersey who asked for a stay of a District Court order. The District Court had declared the state’s 1982 law creating 14 congressional districts unconstitutional and enjoined officials from holding elections under it. The law followed the 1980 census, which reduced New Jersey’s seats from 15 to 14. The legislature’s plan had an overall population deviation of 3,674 people, or 0.6984% from the ideal of 526,059 per district, while several alternative plans showed smaller deviations.
Reasoning
The central question is whether the Constitution requires the legislature to adopt the mathematically most exact plan or whether it may consider other factors like preserving prior districts, municipal lines, or incumbents. The District Court applied Kirkpatrick but split 2–1 on how strict that standard is. The Circuit Justice evaluated the stay request under the four-part Rostker test. He found a reasonable probability that at least four Justices would view the issue as deserving review, a fair prospect of reversal, and that the applicants would suffer irreparable harm if a stay were denied because the legislature faced a March 22 deadline or risked a court-imposed map. He also favored legislative plans over judicially drawn maps when balancing the equities.
Real world impact
The stay preserves the legislature’s 1982 map while the appeal proceeds and prevents immediate implementation of a court-drawn plan. This is an interim procedural ruling, not a final decision on the constitutionality of the map; the ultimate outcome could change on full review.
Dissents or concurrances
A District Court dissent argued that the 0.6984% deviation is statistically insignificant and therefore acceptable under Kirkpatrick, a view that contrasts with the majority below.
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?