De Gaudemar v. Kosinski
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-03534
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In De Gaudemar v. Kosinski, Judge Kaplan requested a three-judge panel to hear plaintiffs’ congressional-district challenge.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the congressional-districting litigation, and the court that would preside over their claims.
What happened
In De Gaudemar v. Kosinski, the plaintiffs challenged New York’s current congressional districts, claiming they violated the Constitution and federal law.
They sought declarations, orders blocking use of the challenged districting plans, and an order requiring certification of a congressional plan before the scheduled primary election. They also asked for a three-judge district court.
The court requested that the Chief Judge of the Second Circuit promptly appoint a three-judge panel. Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did not decide the underlying redistricting claims in this opinion.
The detailed version
- De Gaudemar v. Kosinski · No. 1:22-cv-03534
- Lewis Kaplan
- May 3, 2022
Background
The plaintiffs challenged New York’s current congressional-district configuration. They alleged that it violated Article I, Section 2, of the United States Constitution and 2 U.S.C. § 2c. The complaint sought a declaration that the configuration was unlawful, preliminary and permanent injunctions blocking defendants from implementing or enforcing the challenged plans, and an order requiring defendants to certify the primary ballot under a congressional plan adopted by the court. The plaintiffs also asked the court to request appointment of a three-judge district court under 28 U.S.C. § 2284(b)(1).
Court’s action
The court respectfully requested that the Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit promptly appoint a three-judge panel to preside over the claims. The opinion did not decide whether New York’s congressional districts violated the Constitution or federal law, and it did not rule on the requested injunctions or other relief.
Effect
The ruling concerns the requested composition of the court that would hear the litigation. It does not state whether the Second Circuit Chief Judge ultimately appointed the panel.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.