Shapiro v. Mcmanus (577 U.S. 39)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided December 8, 2015 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 577 U.S. 39 · 136 S. Ct. 450
- Decided
- December 8, 2015
- Term
- October Term 2015
- Vote
- 9–0
- Majority author
- Justice Scalia
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2015 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus SHAPIRO ET AL. v. McMANUS, CHAIRMAN, MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS, ET AL. CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14–990. Argued November 4, 2015—Decided December 8, 2015 Since 1976, federal law has mandated that a “district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts . . . ,” 28 U. S. C. §2284 (a), and has provided 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, §2284(b)(1). Petitioners requested that a three-judge court be convened to con- sider their claim that Maryland’s 2011 congressional redistricting plan burdens their First Amendment right of political association. Concluding that no relief…
Excerpt of a 17,712-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.