Besinek v. Lamone
The Supreme Court upheld a lower court's refusal to block Maryland's congressional map before the 2018 election, ruling that the voters challenging the map as a partisan gerrymander had waited too long to ask for emergency relief.
The decision leaves Maryland's map in place for the 2018 election but does not resolve whether the map itself is an unconstitutional gerrymander, since it only addresses the request for a preliminary injunction.
How it got here: A federal district court denied the voters' request to block the map and paused the case pending a related Supreme Court ruling; the voters appealed that denial directly to the Supreme Court.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A group of Republican voters in Maryland's Sixth Congressional District claimed the district was redrawn in 2011 specifically to punish them for their political views, diluting their voting power. They sued state election officials, and years later asked a federal court to block the state from using the 2011 map in the 2018 election while their lawsuit continued.
The question before the Court
Should a federal court have forced Maryland to redraw its Sixth Congressional District before the 2018 election over gerrymandering claims?
Why it matters
Maryland's Sixth Congressional District map stayed in place for the 2018 election, meaning voters cast ballots under the very map they claimed was rigged against them. The ruling also signals to future litigants that courts weigh delay and election-timing disruption heavily when deciding whether to block a map before a vote, even if the underlying gerrymandering claim may still have merit.
What changes now
The 2018 election proceeded under Maryland's existing congressional map. The underlying lawsuit over whether the map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander was not resolved and could continue in the lower court. This ruling only addressed the request for emergency relief blocking the map, not the ultimate legality of the districting plan itself.
What this does not decide
This ruling does not decide whether Maryland's congressional map is an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. It only addresses whether the lower court abused its discretion in denying emergency relief before the 2018 election, leaving the underlying constitutional claims for further proceedings.
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- The Court reviewed the district court's denial of a preliminary injunction only for abuse of discretion, noting that this kind of emergency order is an extraordinary remedy that isn't granted just because a plaintiff might eventually win.
- Under the controlling four-part test, a plaintiff seeking this kind of emergency block must show likely success on the merits, irreparable harm without relief, that the balance of hardships favors them, and that an injunction serves the public interest.
- Even assuming the voters were likely to win on the merits, the Court found the balance of harms and the public interest weighed against blocking the map, because the voters had waited six years and three elections before seeking emergency relief.
- The Court explained that courts generally expect parties seeking emergency relief to act with reasonable diligence, and it attributed most of the delay to the voters' own choice not to raise their current retaliation theory until 2016.
- The Court also credited the public's interest in stable, orderly elections, noting the voters' own proposed deadline for relief had already passed and that the district court reasonably chose to wait for guidance from a related pending case before deciding how to handle the claims.
- Weighing these factors together, the Court concluded the district court's decision to deny the injunction and pause the case was a reasonable exercise of discretion, not an abuse of it.