Rucho v. Common Cause

The case arose from two challenges to partisan redistricting plans. In North Carolina, Republican legislators drew a congressional map designed to elect 10 of 13 Republicans, and a federal district court struck it down as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. In Maryland, Democrats challenged a map that flipped a Republican-held district, and a three-judge panel also ruled against the state. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in both cases and consolidated them for argument on March 26, 2019.¹

Writing for the 5–4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts held that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because they raise a political question. The Court reasoned that no "judicially discernible and manageable standards" exist to adjudicate such claims, and that the Framers gave Congress, not the courts, the primary role in regulating elections. The majority distinguished racial gerrymandering, which is subject to strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause, from partisan gerrymandering, which lacks a clear constitutional baseline. The decision reversed both lower courts and remanded with instructions to dismiss.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, dissented, arguing that the Court had previously recognized partisan gerrymandering as justiciable and that manageable standards existed, such as the efficiency gap. She warned that the decision would "deprive citizens of the only available remedy" against a practice that undermines democratic accountability. Legal scholars have debated the ruling's implications, with some noting that it leaves state courts and ballot initiatives as the primary venues for reform. In 2023, the Court in Moore v. Harper rejected the independent state legislature theory, which some saw as a partial check on state-level gerrymandering.²

Lesser-known aspects include the fact that the North Carolina case was originally filed by Common Cause and several Democratic voters, and that the state's map was drawn with the explicit goal of maximizing Republican seats, as revealed in emails from a redistricting consultant. The Maryland case, Benisek v. Lamone, involved a district that was redrawn to remove a Republican incumbent. The decision did not foreclose all gerrymandering challenges: racial gerrymandering claims remain justiciable, and state courts can still strike down partisan maps under state constitutions. In 2022, the North Carolina Supreme Court struck down a map under state law, but that decision was later reversed after the court's composition changed. The case also highlighted the role of the efficiency gap, a metric developed by political scientists, which the majority declined to adopt as a constitutional standard.³

Political question doctrine

A doctrine that certain issues are left to the political branches and are not justiciable in federal courts.

Efficiency gap

A measure of partisan gerrymandering that compares the number of wasted votes each party receives.

Justiciability

The ability of a court to hear and decide a case.