SCOTUS Takes Up 2 Partisan Gerrymandering Cases
At its Friday conference, the high court decided it will hear North Carolina Republican legislators' appeal of a 2018 three-judge ruling that found partisan gerrymandering used to corral the majority of Democratic voters in just three districts in 2016 was unconstitutional.
January 04, 2019 at 05:38 PM
3 minute read
Emmet Bondurant, left, of Bondurant Mixson & Elmore and Michael Kimberly, right, of Mayer Brown. Courtesy photos.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday decided to hear two partisan gerrymandering cases: a North Carolina case spearheaded by Atlanta attorney Emmet Bondurant and the Maryland case that inspired it.
At its Friday conference, the high court decided it will hear North Carolina Republican legislators' appeal of a 2018 three-judge ruling that found partisan gerrymandering used to corral the majority of Democratic voters in just three districts in 2016 was unconstitutional. The case, Rucho v. Common Cause, was originally filed in 2016 in U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina.
Bondurant, lead counsel for Common Cause, is a founding partner of Atlanta's Bondurant, Mixson & Elmore, and a 50-year veteran of legal voting rights battles.
The North Carolina Department of Justice and a team of attorneys at Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart headed by Thomas Farr, whose controversial nomination to the federal bench was defeated last month, represent the Republican state legislators who are defendants in the case. Farr could not be reached for comment.
The high court also agreed to hear Lamone v. Benisek, a Maryland case making its third appearance before the high court that challenges Democratic legislators' redistricting in that state. The case, originally known as Shapiro v. McManus, was first filed pro se in 2013 by Maryland engineer Stephen Shapiro, a Common Cause volunteer.
After initially losing in the lower courts, Shapiro joined forces with Michael Kimberly, now a Mayer Brown partner in Washington, D.C., who successfully argued the case when it was first heard by the Supreme Court in 2015.
Bondurant found the centerpiece of the North Carolina litigation tucked away in Shapiro's original complaint, an argument first offered by Justice Anthony Kennedy in 2004 that partisan gerrymandering should be considered a violation of the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court scheduled both cases for oral arguments in March, although a specific date has not yet been set.
“Whether it is Democrats or Republicans manipulating the election maps, gerrymanders cheat voters out of true representation,” Common Cause President Karen Hobert Flynn said Friday. “The Supreme Court has the opportunity to set a clear standard that will restore a meaningful vote to millions of Americans disenfranchised by gerrymanders in Maryland, North Carolina and across the country.”
Kimberly said that when the Supreme Court heard a Wisconsin partisan gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford, and the Lamone case for the second time last year, “Everyone was anticipating they would finally do something on partisan gerrymandering.” But, he added, “They ducked the tough issues last time. I don't think they will do that this time. I think these two cases will have significant implications for the way that redistricting is conducted going forward if we prevail.”
Read more:
Atlanta's Emmet Bondurant Crafted Legal Challenge to NC Gerrymandering
Trump Portrays Supreme Court as Key Player in DACA, Border Wall Fights
Kirkland, Latham and Wilmer Fight Trump's Transgender Troop Ban at SCOTUS
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
'A Warning Shot to Board Rooms': DOJ Decision to Fight $14B Tech Merger May Be Bad Omen for Industry
'Incredibly Complicated'? Antitrust Litigators Identify Pros and Cons of Proposed One Agency Act
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Uber Files RICO Suit Against Plaintiff-Side Firms Alleging Fraudulent Injury Claims
- 2The Law Firm Disrupted: Scrutinizing the Elephant More Than the Mouse
- 3Inherent Diminished Value Damages Unavailable to 3rd-Party Claimants, Court Says
- 4Pa. Defense Firm Sued by Client Over Ex-Eagles Player's $43.5M Med Mal Win
- 5Losses Mount at Morris Manning, but Departing Ex-Chair Stays Bullish About His Old Firm's Future
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
