Benisek v. Mack, 11 F. Supp. 3d 516

Background

Plaintiffs (Benisek et al.) challenge Maryland’s 2011 congressional map, alleging four districts (4th, 6th, 7th, 8th) are composed of "de-facto non-contiguous" segments joined by narrow ribbons that pair demographically and politically dissimilar populations.
Plaintiffs claim these district structures dilute representation in violation of Article I, §2, the Fourteenth Amendment, and the First Amendment (political association), especially given Maryland’s closed primary system.
Defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; they also argued res judicata based on Fletcher v. Lamone.
The court considered the Rule 12(b)(6) standard and whether a three-judge court was required, concluding a single judge could decide the dismissal question.
The court rejected res judicata/virtual-representation arguments (distinguishing Fletcher) but held both constitutional claims nonjusticiable or otherwise deficient and granted dismissal.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Justiciability of political gerrymandering/representational claim under Article I §2 and the 14th Amendment	Benisek: districts’ de-facto non‑contiguity and demographic mismatch dilute representation of voters in smaller segments; court can apply a contiguity/compatibility standard	Defendants: claim duplicates issues already resolved in Fletcher and is not legally cognizable; courts lack manageable standards to adjudicate partisan gerrymandering	Court: claim presents a nonjusticiable political question under Supreme Court precedent (Vieth, LULAC); dismissed
Res judicata / virtual representation	Benisek: new plaintiffs asserting distinct claims focused on different districts and no racial-motivation theory	Defendants: Fletcher adjudicated the 2011 plan and precludes relitigation; Fletcher plaintiffs virtually represented all aggrieved parties	Court: res judicata not established—cause-of-action and accountability/privity requirements not met; rejected defendants’ preclusion argument
First Amendment (political association) claim	Benisek: district structure plus closed primaries burdens Republican voters’ associational rights and effectiveness	Defendants: district lines do not proscribe political activity or bar association; remedies lie in political processes	Court: First Amendment challenge fails—no cognizable burden beyond claims covered by Fourteenth Amendment; dismissed
Necessity of three-judge panel under 28 U.S.C. §2284	Benisek: claims challenge congressional apportionment, typically requiring three-judge court	Defendants: court may dismiss without convening three-judge panel if claims are insubstantial	Held: single judge may decide dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6); dismissal entered without convening three-judge court

Key Cases Cited

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausible claims required)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading standard and dismissal for failure to state a claim)
Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (political gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable absent manageable standard)
League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (requiring a reliable standard to measure representational burden in partisan-gerrymandering claims)
Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (earlier holding political gerrymandering claims justiciable — later limited)
Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (political question doctrine and justiciability framework)
Fletcher v. Lamone, 831 F. Supp. 2d 887 (D.Md. decision upholding Maryland 2011 plan; discussed for res judicata/privity)
Duckworth v. State Admin. Bd. of Election Laws, 332 F.3d 769 (4th Cir.) (procedural guidance on three-judge requirement and dismissal)
Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (one-person, one-vote principle)
Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (congressional districting and population equality)
Washington v. Finlay, 664 F.2d 913 (4th Cir.) (First Amendment voting/association claims limited by other constitutional protections)