356 F. Supp. 3d 1351
N.D. Ala.2019Background
- Plaintiffs are eight African-American Alabama residents challenging the 2011 congressional redistricting plan (S.B. 484) as unlawfully diluting Black votes under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (vote-packing in CD7 and alleged cracking in CDs 1, 2, 3).
- Plaintiffs pleaded only a statutory Section 2 claim; they did not assert any constitutional challenge to apportionment or invoke any other statute that would "otherwise require" a three-judge court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a).
- Defendant (Secretary of State) moved for judgment on the pleadings arguing the case must be referred to a three-judge panel under § 2284 because the Section 2 claim is effectively the same as a constitutional apportionment challenge and because of congressional intent/policy behind § 2284.
- The court held a hearing, reviewed briefing, and framed the sole jurisdictional question as whether § 2284 mandated convening a three-judge court for a pure Section 2 claim.
- The court determined § 2284(a) is unambiguous: it requires three judges only when the action challenges the constitutionality of apportionment or when another Act of Congress explicitly requires a three-judge court; Section 2 contains no such requirement.
- The court denied Defendant’s motion on the jurisdictional issue, concluding a single judge may hear a pure Section 2 vote-dilution claim and noting Congress could (but has not) amended the statutes if it intended otherwise.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) requires a three-judge panel for a claim alleging only a Section 2 VRA vote-dilution challenge | Section 2 claim is statutory only; §2284(a) triggers only for constitutional apportionment challenges or when another Act requires three judges | Although pleading is statutory, the Section 2 claim functions like a constitutional apportionment challenge; congressional purpose behind §2284 supports three-judge panel | Denied: §2284(a) unambiguous; a pure Section 2 claim does not require a three-judge court |
Key Cases Cited
- Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (context on plaintiffs choosing claims)
- Caminetti v. United States, 242 U.S. 470 (textualist canon: plain language controls)
- Ali v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, 552 U.S. 214 (statutory interpretation: avoid creating ambiguity)
- Louisville & Nashville R.R. v. Mottley, 211 U.S. 149 (federal jurisdiction must be examined)
- Cannon v. Univ. of Chi., 441 U.S. 677 (presumption that Congress knows its laws)
- Page v. Bartels, 248 F.3d 175 (historical note that §2 was not used for apportionment challenges in 1976)
- Rural W. Tenn. African-American Affairs Council v. Sundquist, 209 F.3d 835 (example of purely statutory Section 2 litigation before a single judge)