Today the Court released one opinion:
In the case of Shapiro v. McManus, the judgment of the Fourth Circuit is reversed and the case remanded by a vote of 9-0. Per Justice Scalia's opinion for a unanimous Court:
We consider under what circumstances, if any, a district judge is free to 'determin[e] that three judges are not required' for an action 'challenging the constitutionality of the apportionment of congressional districts.' 28 U. S. C. §§2284(a), (b)(1)....In Goosby v. Osser, 409 U. S. 512 (1973), we stated that the filing of a 'constitutionally insubstantial' claim did not trigger the three-judge-court requirement under the pre-1976 statutory regime....Absent a substantial federal question, even a single-judge district court lacks jurisdiction, and '[a] three-judge court is not required where the district court itself lacks jurisdiction of the complaint or the complaint is not justiciable in the federal courts.' Gonzalez v. Automatic Employees Credit Union, 419 U. S. 90, 100 (1974). In the present case, however, the District Judge dismissed petitioners’ complaint not because he thought he lacked jurisdiction, but because he concluded that the allegations failed to state a claim for relief on the merits.... We think this standard both too demanding and inconsistent with our precedents. '[C]onstitutional claims will not lightly be found insubstantial for purposes of' the three-judge-court statute....Whatever 'wholly insubstantial,' 'obviously frivolous,' etc., mean, at a minimum they cannot include a plea for relief based on a legal theory put forward by a Justice of this Court and uncontradicted by the majority in any of our cases. Accordingly, the District Judge should not have dismissed the claim as “constitutionally insubstantial” under Goosby. Perhaps petitioners will ultimately fail on the merits of their suit, but §2284 entitles them to make their case before a three-judge district court. (emphasis added)