C. Martin Lawyer, Iii v. Department of Justice et al. (521 U.S. 567)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 25, 1997 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 521 U.S. 567 · 117 S. Ct. 2186
- Decided
- June 25, 1997
- Term
- October Term 1996
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Souter
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
Justice Souter delivered the opinion of the Court. Appellant was one of several plaintiffs in this suit challenging the configuration of a Florida legislative district under the Equal Protection Clause. All parties except appellant reached a provisional settlement agreement and, after a fairness hearing, a three-judge District Court approved the remedial districting plan proposed in the agreement. Appellant claims that the District Court acted without giving the State an adequate opportunity to make its own redistricting choice by approving the remedial plan without first adjudicating the legality of the original plan, that the court had no authority to approve any settlement over his objection, and that the remedial plan violates the Constitution. We hold that the State exercised the choice to which it was entitled under our cases, that appellant has no right to block the settlement, and that he has failed to point up any unconstitutionality in the plan proposed. H — I After the 1990 Decennial Census, the Florida Legislature adopted a reapportionment plan for Florida’s 40 Senate districts and 120 House districts. Following the procedure for reapportionment set forth in the State Constitution, see Fla. Const., Art. III, § 16(c) (1970), the attorney general of Florida petitioned the State Supreme Court for a declaration that the plan comported with state and federal law. That…
Excerpt of a 29,273-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.