Branch v. Smith

The 2000 census resulted in Mississippi’s loss of one congressional seat, leaving the state with more districts than representatives it was entitled to elect. The state legislature failed to pass a redistricting plan. With the 2002 congressional elections approaching, Beatrice Branch (plaintiff) and others filed suit in Mississippi state court, asking the court to devise a redistricting plan. John Smith (defendant) and others filed suit in federal court asking the court to order at-large elections or, alternatively, to create its own redistricting plan for the state. The state court adopted a redistricting plan, but the Justice Department refused to clear the plan without additional information. Several weeks later, fearing the state court’s plan would not be cleared in time, the federal court enjoined the use of the state court’s plan and ordered the use of the federal court’s redistricting plan, which used single-member rather than at-large districts. Branch appealed the federal court’s order. The United States Supreme Court ruled that the federal district court had properly enjoined the use of the state-court plan and considered whether the federal court’s single-member-district plan was appropriate or whether the court should have used at-large districts. The Court focused on two provisions of 2 U.S.C. § 2. Section 2a(c) provided, in relevant part, that if an apportionment reduced the number of representatives in a state’s congressional delegation and left the state with more districts than representatives, then at-large congressional elections were to be held until the state was redistricted in the manner provided by state law. Section 2c required each state entitled to more than one representative to elect its representatives from single-member districts. The court considered whether, in enacting § 2c, Congress had implicitly repealed § 2a(c).