Opinion ID: 2656849
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdictional basis and standard of review

Text: The statutory basis for the District Court’s jurisdiction was 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343, and our jurisdiction, if constitutionally proper, arises under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s decision not to convene a three-judge panel. Page v. Bartels, 248 F.3d 175, 192 n.11 (3d Cir. 2001). According to 3 The LRC was initially an appellee in this case. After the notice of appeal was filed, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court issued its decision in Holt II approving the LRC’s 2012 Final Plan. According to appellants, that decision mooted any relief they sought from the LRC, and, pursuant to a stipulation, we subsequently dismissed the LRC as a party to this appeal. 6 28 U.S.C. § 2284(a), in general, a three-judge panel of the district court must be convened “when an action is filed challenging the constitutionality of . . . the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.” In such a suit, a single district court judge is not permitted to “hear and determine any application for a preliminary or permanent injunction . . . or enter judgment on the merits.” Id. § 2284(b)(3). A panel of three judges need not be assembled, however, and a single judge of the district court may issue a ruling on the merits where “the plaintiffs’ constitutional challenge was legally frivolous and insubstantial.” Page, 248 F.3d at 191 (citing Goosby v. Osser, 409 U.S. 512, 518 (1973); Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U.S. 31, 33 (1962) (per curiam)). It is also necessary for us to consider appellants’ standing to bring their malapportionment claim, an issue not addressed by the District Court. Before any federal appellate court can examine the merits of a claim, it must be satisfied that both it has and the lower court had subject matter jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94-95 (1998); Bender v. Williamsport Area Sch. Dist., 475 U.S. 534, 541 (1986). A court has this “independent obligation to determine whether subject matter jurisdiction exists, even if its jurisdiction is not challenged.” Nuveen Mun. Trust ex rel. Nuveen High Yield Mun. Bond Fund v. WithumSmith Brown, P.C., 692 F.3d 283, 293 (3d Cir. 2012) (citing Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514 (2006)). Proper jurisdiction exists only where the dispute constitutes a “case” or “controversy” within the meaning of Article III, which, in turn, requires that the plaintiffs have standing to sue. Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811, 818 (1997). The burden of establishing standing belongs 7 to the plaintiff. Berg v. Obama, 586 F.3d 234, 238 (3d Cir. 2009). Jurisdiction may be called into question, as we do here, based on the insufficiency of the allegations in a complaint. In such a case, we must accept the allegations of the complaint as true and determine whether they are sufficient to invoke federal-court jurisdiction. Taliaferro v. Darby Twp. Zoning Bd., 458 F.3d 181, 188 (3d Cir. 2006).