Since 1976, federal law has required that a "district court of three judges shall be convened" in any action "challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts." 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). Unless the single judge initially presented with a request for a three-judge court "determines that three judges are not required," she must "immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges" to serve on the panel.

By statute, a "district court of three judges shall be convened . . . when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts." 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a). The law further provides that "the judge [presented with a request for a three-judge court] shall, unless he determines that three judges are not required, immediately notify the chief judge of the circuit, who shall designate two other judges" to serve.

Shapiro v McManusShapiro and other Maryland voters filed suit challenging the redistricting plan for Maryland’s congressional delegation. The district court dismissed for failure to state a claim instead of notifying the chief judge that a three judge panel needed to be empaneled under 28 USC 2284(a). The 4th Circuit affirmed.

nded down only one case Monday—leaving (gasp) twenty more to come over the next two weeks—it was active on the certiorari front, granting cert in three new cases and denying in one over a written dissent. The Court granted cert in:Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo (14-1146), which asks whether a class action may be certified where (1) liability and damages will be determined with statistical techniques that ignore differences among class members and instead presume all members are identical to the average observed in a sample; and (2) when the class contains hundreds of members who were not in fact injured.Luis v. United States (14-419), which asks whether the pretrial restraint of a criminal defendant's untainted assets (i.e. those not traceable to a criminal offense) violates the Fifth and Sixth Amendment when those assets are needed to retain the defendant's counsel of choice.Shapiro v. Mack(14-990), which asks whether a single-judge district court may determine that a complaint covered by 28 U.S.C. § 2284 is insubstantial, meaning the empaneling of a three-judge court is not required, not because it deems the complaint to be frivolous but because it concludes that the complaint fails to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Meanwhile, the Court denied cert in Johnson v. San Francisco, a closely watched case involving a local ordinance that requires residents to lock up guns kept within their homes when not in use.