. January 4, 2019: U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case 4. Scalia •

Holmes • After making more than ten possible congressional maps and comparing them to proposals submitted by third-party drafters, Hawkins proposed two redistricting plans: Congressional Option 1 and Congressional Option 2. Benisek v. Lamone was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on June 18, 2018, which held that the plaintiffs, seven Republican voters in Maryland, failed to demonstrate that they would suffer irreparable harm if an injunction was not granted barring enforcement of a new congressional district map in the state. Field • February 1, 2018.

This produced a 90,000-voter swing in favor of the registered Democrats. (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court erred 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) whether the majority erred in holding that the Mt.

Here’s how you can help. Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. Hughes • Your browser doesn't support the audio tag. according to the proper legal standard.” Id., at 816. The court explained that, notwithstanding its “diligence in ruling on the pending preliminary injunction motion (which has been a priority for each member of this panel),” plaintiffs’ proposed August deadline for injunctive relief had “already come and gone.” Ibid. Healthy”) held that when plaintiffs make a prima facie showing of retaliatory harm, the burden shifts to the defendants to show that they would still take the same actions even without the motivation of retaliation. School of Law filed. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Supreme Court of the United States, Washington, D. C. 20543, of any typographical or other formal errors, in order that corrections may be made before the preliminary print goes to press. (Distributed), Brief amicus curiae of States of Michigan, et al. Professor Michael Kang, in support of Benisek, argues that an electoral map based on partisanship burdens citizens’ First Amendment rights and can therefore never serve a valid government interest.

Further consideration of the question of jurisdiction is POSTPONED to the hearing of the case on the merits. Moreover, the States assert that attempting to apply a First Amendment standard would risk distorting First Amendment principles, including indicating that some level of viewpoint discrimination is acceptable.

Sanford • Republican voters alleged that Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District was gerrymandered in 2011 in retaliation for their political views. Benisek argues that although changing electoral outcomes is not necessary to show identifiable, actionable, more-than-de-minimis burdens imposed on citizens as a result of political gerrymandering, in this case, election outcomes were affected. Benisek claims the redistricting was done via backdoor meetings in an attempt to dilute Republican votes in Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District.However, Lamone claims the 2011 redistricting did not dilute Republican voters, but rather created a political composition similar to the pre-1991 district lines, thus making both parties more competitive. Clarke •

Vinson • W. Johnson, Jr. • Click here for important resources on the nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and the confirmation process. MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2014 TERM, MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2013 TERM, MAJOR CASES OF THE SUPREME COURT 2012 TERM, United States District Court for the District of Maryland, United States Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Lamone_v._Benisek&oldid=7786914, Submit a photo, survey, video, conversation, or bio, Ballotpedia's Daily Presidential News Briefing. In the District Court’s view, it would be “better equipped to make that legal determination and to chart a wise course for further proceedings” after this Court issued a decision in Gill. Second, a due regard for the public interest in orderly elections supported the District Court’s discretionary decision to deny a preliminary injunction and to stay the proceedings. The award “honors men and women of courage and conviction who strive to secure the blessings of liberty to people around the globe.” […]. Voters approved the maps as drawn by the legislature. Duvall • Sutherland • Benisek contends that the same Democratic Performance Index (“DPI”) and Partisan Voting Index (“PVI”) technology used to create the new districts in Maryland can be used to show that a real and practical disadvantage was imposed on Republican voters in Maryland’s Sixth Congressional District. O. JOHN BENISEK, et al., APPELLANTS v. LINDA H. LAMONE, ADMINISTRATOR, MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, et al. Day • Byrnes •

"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? Record requested from the U.S.D.C Dist. Taft • of Maryland. Response in opposition to motion to expedite consideration of the jurisdictional statement from appellees filed.

See below for more information. Ballotpedia features 317,389 encyclopedic articles written and curated by our professional staff of editors, writers, and researchers. (Distributed), Brief amicus curiae of Freedom Partners Chamber of Commerce filed. on appeal from the united states district court for the district of maryland [June 18, 2018] Per Curiam. Brief amicus curiae of The Brennan Center for Justice at N.Y.U.

Lamone responds that the lower court correctly refused to apply Mt. filed. Dec 04 2017: DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/8/2017. Strong • O. John Benisek alleges that the new Sixth District was the result of backdoor meetings intended to consolidate Democratic control of the District.

Plaintiffs argue that they have nevertheless pursued their claims diligently, and they attribute their delay in seeking a preliminary injunction to the “convoluted procedural history of the case” and the “dogged refusal to cooperate in discovery” by state officials. Therefore, Lamone contends that Benisek cannot meet his burden of proving that the facially neutral official act diluted the votes of targeted citizens causing tangible and concrete adverse consequences, and thus the burden-shifting framework does not apply. This outcome, they contend, endangers the ability of the political process to represent diverse viewpoints and promote active involvement in the democratic process. Operations: Meghann Olshefski • Lauren Dixon • Kelly Rindfleisch • Sara Antel • Sara Horton. McKinley • O. John Benisek and the other Appellants, supporters of Bartlett and other Maryland Republicans, appealed this case directly from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The following was the question before the court:[6], On December 8, 2015, the court issued its ruling in the case, reversing the decision of the Fourth Circuit and remanding the case for further proceedings. Benisek argues that this redistricting treats Republicans unfavorably in violation of the First Amendment.

External Relations: Alison Prange • Sara Key • Sarah Rosier • Kari Berger Brief amici curiae of National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, et al. filed. Harlan II • Marshall • Governors Hogan, Schwarzenegger, and others (“Governors”) argue that if Maryland’s redistricting decision is upheld, governors and legislatures will be tempted to pass redistricting maps favorable to their own reelections, clearing the path for their own political agendas. filed. Blanket Consent filed by Petitioners, Linda Lamone, et al.. Feb 07 2019: Blanket Consent filed by Respondents, John Benisek, et al.. Feb 08 2019: Joint appendix (5 volumes) filed. Thomas, Burger •