Lawyer v. Department of Justice
117 S. Ct. 2186, 1997 U.S. LEXIS 4034, 521 U.S. 567 (1997)
Rule of Law:
A federal court may approve a redistricting settlement agreement that a state's authorized representatives have entered into, even without formally adjudicating the unconstitutionality of the prior plan or providing a new opportunity for the state legislature to act through its normal processes, provided the remedial plan itself is constitutional and does not impose duties on unconsenting parties.
Facts:
- After the 1990 Decennial Census, the Florida Legislature adopted a reapportionment plan for state Senate and House districts, which the Florida Supreme Court initially approved.
- The U.S. Department of Justice declined to preclear the proposed State Senate districts, citing concerns that the plan divided "politically cohesive minority populations" in Hillsborough County and failed to create a majority-minority district in that region.
- The Florida Supreme Court, finding a legislative impasse after the Governor declined to convene an extraordinary session and legislative leaders would not act, revised the Senate redistricting plan, creating Plan 330.
- Plan 330 established an irregularly shaped Senate District 21, comprising portions of four counties in the Tampa Bay area, with a voting-age population of 45.8% black and 9.4% Hispanic, which the state court acknowledged was "more contorted" than other possible plans.
- Elections were held under Plan 330 in 1992 and 1994.
- Appellant, Lawyer, and five other residents of Hillsborough County filed suit in federal District Court, alleging that District 21 in Plan 330 violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- All parties to the litigation, except appellant Lawyer, reached a settlement agreement proposing a revised District 21 under a new plan, called Plan 386, which reduced the black voting-age population, decreased boundary length, and covered portions of three counties.
- Counsel for the President of the Florida Senate and the Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives assured the District Court they were authorized to represent their respective bodies and enter into the proposed settlement.
Procedural Posture:
- After the 1990 Decennial Census, the Florida Legislature adopted a reapportionment plan.
- The Florida Attorney General petitioned the Florida Supreme Court for a declaration that the plan comported with state and federal law; that court approved the plan, retaining jurisdiction.
- The United States Department of Justice declined to preclear the State Senate districts.
- The Florida Supreme Court, finding a legislative impasse, revised the Senate redistricting plan, creating Plan 330.
- Appellant Lawyer and five other residents of Hillsborough County filed a suit in a three-judge District Court, alleging that District 21 in Plan 330 violated the Equal Protection Clause and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- The State of Florida, its attorney general, and the United States Department of Justice were named as defendants; the State Senate, House of Representatives, Secretary of State, a District 21 Senator, and a group of black and Hispanic voters were permitted to intervene as defendants.
- Following mediation, all parties except appellant Lawyer filed a settlement agreement with the District Court proposing a new plan, Plan 386.
- The District Court held a hearing on the proposed plan, and subsequently approved the settlement, finding it was not obliged to hold Plan 330 unconstitutional and concluding that Plan 386 was constitutional.
- Chief Judge Tjoflat concurred specially, agreeing Plan 386 was constitutional but believing a judicial determination of Plan 330's unconstitutionality was necessary.
- The Supreme Court of the United States noted probable jurisdiction on appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a federal district court err by approving a redistricting settlement agreement, which includes a new remedial plan, without first formally adjudicating the unconstitutionality of the existing plan or giving the state legislature a new opportunity to devise a plan through its normal processes, when the state's authorized representatives have consented to the settlement?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Souter
No, a federal district court does not err by approving a redistricting settlement agreement under these circumstances. The Court held that the State of Florida exercised its primary responsibility to make redistricting decisions by entering into the settlement agreement through its authorized representatives, the Attorney General and legislative counsel, thereby waiving the need for a formal adjudication of unconstitutionality. Principles from Growe v. Emison and Wise v. Lipscomb, which emphasize state primacy in reapportionment, do not require a formal adjudication when the State itself chooses to settle. The Court further affirmed, citing Firefighters v. Cleveland, that an unconsenting party like the appellant cannot unilaterally block a settlement among other parties, particularly when the settlement grants him the substance of the relief he sought (elimination of the challenged plan). Finally, the Court found that the District Court's determination that the remedial Plan 386 was constitutional and did not subordinate traditional districting principles to race was not clear error, noting its "demonstrably benign and satisfactorily tidy" shape, its consistency with Florida's geography and traditional districting principles, the shared community of interest among its residents, and its non-majority-minority composition allowing fair electoral opportunity.
Dissenting - Justice Scalia
Yes, a federal district court does err by approving such a redistricting settlement. Justice Scalia, joined by Justices O'Connor, Kennedy, and Thomas, argued that the District Court made two fundamental errors: first, it lacked the authority to mandate a remedy without formally finding a violation of federal law, contrary to Voinovich v. Quilter. The dissent contended that merely finding the claim "fairly litigable" was insufficient, and distinguished Firefighters v. Cleveland because that case involved a remedy for adjudged unlawful conduct. It emphasized that the Florida Constitution prescribes specific legislative processes for reapportionment, and a private agreement by state officials, even the Attorney General, cannot serve as the basis for a federal court decree without legislative action. Second, the District Court erred by failing to give the Florida Legislature a proper opportunity to redraw the district through its normal legislative processes after a determination of unconstitutionality. The dissent argued that the required opportunity is to redraw districts after they have been ruled unconstitutional, not merely after a Supreme Court case suggests a potential issue, and that courthouse negotiations do not constitute a legislative opportunity.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the boundaries of federal judicial power in state redistricting disputes, particularly when settlement agreements are involved. It reinforces the principle of deference to state responsibility in reapportionment while also affirming the federal court's authority to approve settlements, provided the state's authorized representatives consent and the remedial plan is constitutional. The decision potentially encourages states to resolve complex and politically charged redistricting challenges through negotiation and settlement to avoid formal findings of unconstitutionality, but the dissenting opinion highlights significant concerns about federal courts circumventing established state legislative processes and intervening without a clear adjudication of federal law violation. The Court's review of the remedial plan's constitutionality, even within a settlement context, underscores that such agreements are not immune from substantive scrutiny.
