Shapiro v. McManus

Background

A bipartisan group of Maryland citizens sued over the State’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan, saying it burdens their First Amendment right to political association. They asked the federal court to convene a three-judge district court. The single district judge dismissed the complaint as one for which no relief could be granted and did not notify the circuit chief judge to form a three-judge panel. The court of appeals affirmed that dismissal.

Reasoning

The Court addressed whether federal law requires referral of challenges to congressional apportionment to a three-judge court. It held that 28 U.S.C. §2284(a) plainly requires a three-judge panel when a suit challenges the constitutionality of congressional districts. The later phrase in §2284(b)(1) that a judge “determin[es] that three judges are not required” was read as a narrow administrative check to confirm the case fits §2284(a), not as permission to decide the merits and avoid referral. The Court noted §2284(b)(3) bars a single judge from entering final judgment. It also explained that only claims that are “wholly insubstantial or frivolous” can be treated as jurisdictionally insubstantial under Goosby; the petitioners’ theory, linked to a Justice’s opinion in Vieth, was not so obviously frivolous.

Real world impact

The Supreme Court reversed the lower court and remanded so a three-judge district court may hear the constitutional challenge. The decision makes clear that most congressional redistricting suits must be heard by a three-judge panel, but it does not decide the merits of the redistricting claim and further proceedings in the lower courts will follow.