Shapiro v. McManus
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14-990 | 4th Cir. | Nov 4, 2015 | Dec 8, 2015 | 9-0 | Scalia | OT 2015 |
Holding: 28 U.S.C. § 2284, which requires that a “district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts,” and further provides that “the judge [presented with a request for a three-judge court] shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges to serve,” entitles a group of Maryland residents to make their claim that the state’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan burdens their First Amendment right of political association before a three-judge court.
Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 9-0, in an opinion by Justice Scalia on December 8, 2015.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Removing discretion in convening three-judge district courts (Howard M. Wasserman, December 8, 2015)
- Argument analysis: “Wow . . . That’s my comment” – a passive Court and a predictable outcome on three-judge courts (Howard M. Wasserman, November 5, 2015)
- Argument preview: Is a three-judge court “not required” when a pleading fails to state a claim? (Howard M. Wasserman, October 19, 2015)
- Petition of the day (Maureen Johnston, March 4, 2015)
| Date | Proceedings and Orders |
|---|---|
| Feb 10 2015 | Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due March 20, 2015) |
| Mar 4 2015 | Order extending time to file response to petition to and including April 20, 2015. |
| Mar 20 2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc filed. |
| Apr 20 2015 | Brief of respondents Bobbie S. Mack, et al. in opposition filed. |
| May 1 2015 | Reply of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, O. John Beniser, and Maria B. Pycha filed. |
| May 5 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 21, 2015. |
| May 26 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 28, 2015. |
| Jun 1 2015 | DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 4, 2015. |
| Jun 8 2015 | Petition GRANTED. |
| Jun 11 2015 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. |
| Jun 22 2015 | Motion to dispense with printing the joint appendix filed by petitioner GRANTED. |
| Jun 22 2015 | The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 7, 2015. |
| Jun 22 2015 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is extended to and including September 24, 2015. |
| Jul 6 2015 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the petitioners. |
| Aug 5 2015 | Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for the respondents. |
| Aug 7 2015 | Brief of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. filed. |
| Aug 13 2015 | Brief amici curiae of Common Cause and The Campaign Legal Center, Inc. filed. |
| Aug 14 2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Virginia State Conference of the NAACP filed. |
| Aug 14 2015 | Brief amicus curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc filed. |
| Aug 14 2015 | Brief amici curiae of Professors Joshua A. Douglas and Michael E. Solimine, Election Law Scholars filed. |
| Sep 9 2015 | SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, November 4, 2015 |
| Sep 10 2015 | Record requested from the U.S.C.A. 4th Circuit. |
| Sep 18 2015 | The time to file respondents' brief on the merits is further extended to and including September 25, 2015. |
| Sep 25 2015 | Brief of respondents David J. McManus, Jr., Chairman, Maryland State Board of Elections, et al. filed. |
| Oct 2 2015 | CIRCULATED |
| Oct 26 2015 | Reply of petitioners Stephen M. Shapiro, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
| Nov 4 2015 | Argued. For petitioners: Michael B. Kimberly, Washington, D. C. For respondents: Steven M. Sullivan, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Md. |
| Dec 8 2015 | Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Scalia, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. |
| Jan 11 2016 | JUDGMENT ISSUED |
