Does a federal court clearly and indisputably transgress its Article III judicial power by exercising jurisdiction over a redistricting dispute challenging old districts based on new census data, when the State is actively redrawing those old districts based on that new census data as required by state law?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Less than 24 hours after the 2020 census data was released, plaintiffs filed redistricting litigation premised on the theory that Wisconsin is incapable of redistricting. The Legislature immediately moved to dismiss for lack of an Article III case or controversy. Before the motions could even be fully briefed, the three-judge federal district court denied the Legislature’s motion. Citing a “historical pattern” of federal court involvement in Wisconsin redistricting and an “urgent requirement of prompt action,” the court asserted that it “must prepare now to resolve the redistricting dispute, should the state fail to establish new maps in time for the 2022 elections.” Pet.App.10. The next elections are nearly a year away, the Legislature is drawing new districts, there is no legislative impasse, and the Wisconsin Supreme Court has agreed to resolve any disputes about the new maps. The questions presented are: (1) Does a federal court clearly and indisputably transgress its Article III judicial power by exercising jurisdiction over a redistricting dispute challenging old districts based on new census data, when the State is actively redrawing those old districts based on that new census data as required by state law? (2) Does a federal court clearly and indisputably transgress its Article III judicial power, as well as principles of federalism and comity, when it refuses to defer consideration of a redistricting dispute to the legislature and state supreme court on the assumption that multiple branches of state government will fail to timely redistrict?