Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Lawyer v. Department of Justice

Supreme Court of the United States · 1997 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawEqual ProtectionRedistrictingRacial GerrymanderingSettlement ApprovalEqual Protection Clauseredistrictingstate primacy

Facts

After Florida's post-1990 census Senate plan was revised by the Florida Supreme Court into Plan 330 to address a federal preclearance objection, District 21 became an irregularly shaped district spanning portions of four counties in the Tampa Bay area. Appellant and other Hillsborough County residents sued in federal court, alleging that District 21 violated the Equal Protection Clause. All parties except appellant later entered a settlement proposing Plan 386, which shortened the district, reduced its minority voting-age percentages, eliminated its extension into Polk County and north toward Clearwater, and made the district cover portions of three counties around Tampa Bay. After notice and a public hearing, the District Court approved the settlement and held Plan 386 constitutional.

Issue

May a federal court approve a settlement adopting a remedial state legislative redistricting plan without first formally holding the existing district unconstitutional, when the State through its attorney general joins the settlement? May a lone objecting plaintiff block that settlement, and did the District Court clearly err in concluding that race did not predominate in drawing the remedial district?

Rule

A State must be given the opportunity to make its own redistricting decisions so long as that is practically possible and the State chooses to take the opportunity; when the State takes that opportunity by proposing a plan in settlement through authorized representation, a federal court need not require a formal adjudication of unconstitutionality before approving the plan. One party may not prevent other parties from settling their dispute, so long as the settlement does not impose duties on the nonconsenting party or improperly cut off claims to which he is entitled. A district court's determination that race did not predominate over traditional districting principles is reviewed for clear error.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Residents of Dayton, Ohio sue in federal court alleging that a state senate district violates equal protection as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Before any ruling on liability, the Ohio attorney general, authorized to represent the State in the litigation, joins most parties in a settlement proposing a replacement district, while the legislature has declined to reconvene to enact a new map.

May the federal court approve the settlement without first formally holding the existing district unconstitutional?

Explanation. The majority rule is that a State should be given the opportunity to make its own redistricting decisions so long as that is practically possible and the State chooses to do so. When the State takes that opportunity by entering a settlement through authorized representation and proposing a remedial plan, the federal court need not require a formal adjudication that the prior plan was unconstitutional before approving the settlement. (Derived from Lawyer v. Department of Justice (n.d.).)