October Term 2017 · Docket 17-333

Can courts fix partisan gerrymanders?

Appellants seek a court order to redraw Maryland districts. Appellees oppose this remedy.

Official caption
Benisek v. Lamone
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Sullivan argued the First Amendment claim fails. He cited a lack of a manageable standard.

    Mr. Kimberly argued the Court has Article III authority. He cited the First Amendment as the basis.

    Mr. Sullivan argued redistricting is inherently political. He questioned how to eliminate all partisanship.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests whether federal courts can resolve partisan gerrymandering claims. The parties dispute the proper legal standard and remedy.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 28, 2018.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Appellants want a court order to redraw the district.

Appellees want the lower court to deny the injunction.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue the First Amendment provides a manageable standard.

Appellees argue the First Amendment claim lacks a manageable standard.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Alito asked what practical terms the remedy requires.

Chief Justice Roberts asked about irreparable harm and election delays.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This dispute defines the role of courts in redistricting. It shapes how voters challenge political maps. It impacts the balance of power in state legislatures.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON