Vieth v. Jubelirer
Headline: Court declares political gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable, overturns Bandemer, and leaves challenges to partisan congressional maps to legislatures and Congress, limiting federal-court review of statewide partisan districting.
Holding: The Court held that claims challenging statewide political gerrymanders are nonjusticiable, overruled Davis v. Bandemer, and affirmed dismissal of the federal challenge, leaving partisan-map disputes to political branches.
- Blocks most federal-court challenges to statewide partisan congressional maps.
- Overrules Bandemer and removes a federal judicial standard for partisan gerrymanders.
- Shifts disputes to state legislatures, Congress, or narrow district-level claims.
Summary
Background
A group of registered Democratic voters sued after Pennsylvania's Republican-controlled legislature redrew congressional districts following the 2000 census. The legislature passed Act 1, and after a court found apportionment problems a remedial Act 34 was enacted. Plaintiffs argued the maps were partisan gerrymanders that violated the Constitution and sought relief in federal court.
Reasoning
A majority led by Justice Scalia concluded that judges lack workable, judicially manageable standards to decide statewide partisan gerrymander claims. The Court found that 18 years of litigation produced no reliable test and that Bandemer's framework failed to provide clear standards, so such claims are nonjusticiable political questions and Bandemer was overruled. Justice Kennedy agreed in the judgment but said courts might one day have a workable test; several Justices dissented.
Real world impact
The ruling affirms the dismissal of the plaintiffs' federal challenge and removes a recognized federal judicial pathway for broad, statewide partisan-map claims. It leaves most disputes about partisan district lines to state law, political processes, Congress, or more limited district-level claims rather than to routine federal adjudication.
Dissents or concurrances
Justices Stevens, Souter (joined by Ginsburg), and Breyer dissented, arguing courts can and should review some district-specific gerrymanders; Justice Kennedy concurred in judgment but urged caution and left open the possibility of future judicial standards.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?