966 F.3d 581
7th Cir.2020Background
- In 2018 Wisconsin elections Democrats Tony Evers (Governor) and Josh Kaul (Attorney General) defeated Republican incumbents.
- During the lame-duck period, the Republican-controlled legislature enacted 2017 Wis. Acts 369 and 370, reallocating several executive powers to the legislature (e.g., limits on re-nomination after legislative rejection; legislative control over administrative-rule suspension; changes to WEDC appointments; requiring legislative approval before the AG may withdraw/settle certain suits; broad legislative intervention rights in state litigation).
- The Democratic Party of Wisconsin and individual Democratic voters sued under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection (vote-dilution), and Guarantee Clause violations; legislative members and state officials were defendants.
- The district court dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, concluding plaintiffs lacked Article III standing and raised nonjusticiable political questions; plaintiffs appealed to the Seventh Circuit.
- The Seventh Circuit affirmed: plaintiffs lacked standing for their First Amendment and Equal Protection claims; the Guarantee Clause claim, while not categorically foreclosed as a doctrinal matter, was nonjusticiable on these facts; Rule 38 sanctions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Article III standing — individual voters | Acts diluted voters’ choices by stripping powers from elected officials, injuring voting effectiveness (First & Equal Protection) | No concrete, particularized injury; votes were counted and officials elected; grievance is generalized and post-election reallocation of powers is state law domain | No standing — injury-in-fact not pleaded; claim dismissed |
| Standing — Democratic Party (associational & organizational) | Party injured directly and on behalf of members; must spend resources to combat demobilization and reduced efficacy | No direct impairment of party functions or members’ voting; organizational costs are ordinary, not cognizable injury | No standing — associational fails (members lack standing); organizational injury insufficient |
| Realignment / Evers as plaintiff | Governor Evers sought de facto plaintiff status; court could realign under Rule 21 to preserve standing | No formal motion to realign; district court acted within discretion not to realign without briefing; realignment raises additional issues (immunity, authority to sue) | No realignment; plaintiffs may not rely on Evers for standing on appeal |
| Guarantee Clause justiciability & merits | Acts violate core republican norms; Guarantee Clause claims can sometimes be justiciable | Guarantee Clause claims generally present political questions; modest intrastate reallocation of power is for state law/politics | Guarantee Clause not categorically foreclosed, but this claim is nonjusticiable on these facts and fails |
| Rule 38 sanctions | Appeal raised nonfrivolous, arguable points (e.g., realignment, Guarantee Clause); pursued in good faith | Appeal was frivolous political statement; sanctions warranted | Denied — appeal not so frivolous as to merit sanctions |
Key Cases Cited
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (Article III standing requirements: injury-in-fact, causation, redressability)
- Gill v. Whitford, 138 S. Ct. 1916 (U.S. 2018) (generalized grievances and political-question limits on voting claims)
- Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186 (U.S. 1962) (justiciability of reapportionment/vote-dilution claims)
- Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533 (U.S. 1964) (one-person, one-vote principle in legislative apportionment)
- Rucho v. Common Cause, 139 S. Ct. 2484 (U.S. 2019) (political gerrymandering and discussion of Guarantee Clause justiciability)
- New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (U.S. 1992) (observing some Guarantee Clause claims might be justiciable)
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (associational standing principles)
- Risser v. Thompson, 930 F.2d 549 (7th Cir. 1991) (state-branch power allocation and limits on Guarantee Clause relief)
- Largess v. Supreme Judicial Court for the State of Mass., 373 F.3d 219 (1st Cir. 2004) (Guarantee Clause justiciability discussion)
- Kerr v. Hickenlooper, 744 F.3d 1156 (10th Cir. 2014) (rejecting categorical nonjusticiability of all Guarantee Clause claims)
- Common Cause Ind. v. Lawson, 937 F.3d 944 (7th Cir. 2019) (organizational standing where laws forced resource diversion)