Rucho v. Common Cause

Background

Voters in North Carolina and Maryland challenged their States' congressional maps as extreme partisan gerrymanders. North Carolina Republicans drew a 2016 map intended to produce a 10–3 Republican delegation; Maryland Democrats redrew a district to flip the Sixth by moving hundreds of thousands of voters. District courts found constitutional violations and blocked the maps, and the cases reached this Court.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether federal courts have a workable, neutral standard to decide when partisan mapmaking goes too far. The majority concluded they do not. It explained that the Constitution does not supply clear rules for measuring political fairness, that one-person/one-vote and racial-gerrymandering law are not analogous, and that judges cannot reliably predict future elections or pick a national baseline for fairness. The Court therefore held these claims are political questions outside federal judicial power and vacated the lower courts' judgments, ordering dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.

Real world impact

The ruling means federal courts will not resolve complaints that district lines are drawn for partisan advantage; the opinion points voters and reformers to state courts, state constitutional amendments, independent commissions, state laws, and Congress as the remaining avenues. The decision does not say partisan gerrymandering is lawful; it says federal courts lack authority to decide these claims.

Dissents or concurrances

The dissent argued that lower courts had developed manageable tests (showing intent, substantial effects, and a causal link) and used data-driven outlier analyses to identify extreme gerrymanders, and would have left room for judicial relief in the worst cases.