Igartúa v. Obama, 842 F.3d 149

Background

Plaintiffs (including Gregorio Igartúa), U.S. citizens resident in Puerto Rico, challenge their exclusion from apportionment of U.S. House seats and seek representation (and five representatives).
This is the fifth appellate appearance of Igartúa; the issue was decided on the merits in Igartúa IV, which held the Constitution does not permit the claimed right except by statehood or amendment.
The district court denied plaintiffs’ request to convene a three-judge district court and dismissed the case; plaintiffs appealed.
The panel felt bound by Igartúa IV under res judicata and stare decisis and therefore affirmed dismissal, but questioned the correctness of the brief footnote in Igartúa IV rejecting a three-judge court.
The panel analyzed whether 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a) (three-judge courts for challenges to apportionment of congressional districts) covers non‑apportionment claims (i.e., exclusion from apportionment) and whether plaintiffs’ claims meet the “substantial federal question” threshold.
The panel concluded plaintiffs’ claims plausibly fall within § 2284(a) and are not frivolous under the Shapiro/Goosby standard, and recommended en banc reconsideration of whether a three-judge court should have been convened, but nonetheless affirmed based on binding precedent.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether § 2284(a) covers a challenge to Congress’s failure to apportion representation to Puerto Rico (non‑apportionment claim)	§2284(a) covers any challenge to apportionment, including claims that a group was excluded from apportionment; Adams supports inclusion	The statute covers challenges to specific apportionment of districts, not claims that Congress omitted a jurisdiction from apportionment	Panel: §2284(a) plausibly covers non‑apportionment claims; Supreme Court precedent (Adams) supports a broad reading, so the point warrants en banc review
Whether plaintiffs’ claims present a "substantial federal question" (jurisdictional threshold for convening three judges)	Claims are not frivolous; treaty (ICCPR) and constitutional arguments raise substantial federal questions	Prior circuit precedent (Igartúa IV) and defendants argue claims are insubstantial/lack standing	Panel: Claims clear the low Goosby/Shapiro substantiality bar; they are not "wholly insubstantial or fictitious," so a three‑judge court should be considered
Effect of a district judge’s refusal to convene three judges on appellate review and prior merits rulings	If a three‑judge court was required, single‑judge merits rulings and later appellate merits decisions are void	Defendants rely on prior merits decision in Igartúa IV and district court denial to foreclose further relief	Panel: If the three‑judge requirement applies, prior single‑judge and appellate merits rulings would be void; this is why the three‑judge issue is consequential and merits en banc attention
Precedential weight of Igartúa IV footnote rejecting three‑judge court	Footnote is cursory; may be dicta and should not bind future panels; thus district court erred in relying on it	Footnote was part of prior panel decision and treated as binding under stare decisis	Panel: As a three‑judge panel, bound by Igartúa IV, they must affirm; but they doubt the footnote’s correctness and call for en banc reconsideration (Torruella concurrence argues footnote is dicta and nonbinding)

Key Cases Cited

Igartúa v. United States, 626 F.3d 592 (1st Cir. 2010) (prior panel decision rejecting plaintiffs’ claim on the merits and containing the brief footnote on three‑judge requirement)
Shapiro v. McManus, 136 S. Ct. 450 (U.S. 2015) (three‑judge court statute requires only determination that the case falls within §2284(a); claim must not be "wholly insubstantial")
Adams v. Clinton, 531 U.S. 941 (2000) (Supreme Court’s summary affirmance of three‑judge court decision addressing non‑apportionment claim)
Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512 (1973) (three‑judge threshold: dismiss only if claims are "wholly insubstantial")
Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (jurisdictional rulings have precedential constraints; discussion of "drive‑by jurisdictional rulings")
Stratton v. St. Louis Sw. Ry. Co., 282 U.S. 10 (1930) (appellate merits rulings void if three‑judge requirement improperly bypassed)
Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U.S. 713 (1962) (appeal from a three‑judge court goes directly to the Supreme Court; courts of appeals generally precluded from reviewing merits when three‑judge panel required)
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (insubstantial/fictitious claim standard in federal jurisdiction context)