## Facts

- North Carolina’s Republican-controlled legislature adopted a 2016 congressional map after prior districts were invalidated; the map’s drafter stated an intent to produce a 10–3 Republican advantage in a 13-seat delegation.
- The map produced a 10–3 delegation in 2016 and continued to yield a disproportionate Republican delegation despite roughly even statewide vote shares in later elections.
- Maryland’s Democratic-controlled legislature redrew the Sixth Congressional District after the 2010 census to convert it from Republican-leaning to Democratic-leaning, aiming to secure a 7–1 Democratic advantage statewide.
- In Maryland, many Republican voters were moved out of the Sixth District and Democratic voters moved in; the district flipped to Democratic control and remained so.
- Plaintiffs in both states alleged intentional partisan entrenchment and vote dilution in violation of the Constitution.
- Three-judge federal district courts in both cases ruled for plaintiffs under theories including the First Amendment and Equal Protection and enjoined the challenged maps.
- State officials appealed directly to the Supreme Court; the cases were resolved together in a single opinion.

## Issues

1. Whether claims that electoral district lines were drawn to advantage a political party present justiciable federal questions or nonjusticiable political questions.
2. Whether the federal judiciary has judicially discoverable and manageable standards to decide when partisan redistricting becomes unconstitutional.
3. If justiciable, whether the North Carolina and Maryland plans were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.

## Decision

- The Court held (5–4) that federal constitutional challenges to partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable political questions.
- The Court reversed the judgments of the district courts and directed dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.
- The Court did not decide whether the particular maps violated the Constitution on the merits.
- The Court stated that remedies for partisan gerrymandering must come from political processes, including congressional action under the Elections Clause and state-level reforms.

## Legal Principles

- A claim is nonjusticiable when it lacks judicially discoverable and manageable standards and instead requires determinations committed to political branches.
- The Constitution provides no workable, neutral standard for federal courts to determine how much partisan influence in districting is “too much” for purposes of invalidation.
- The presence of longstanding partisan districting and the Elections Clause allocation of authority to state legislatures, subject to congressional oversight, supports leaving partisan-gerrymandering disputes to political remedies rather than federal adjudication.
- Racial-gerrymandering claims remain justiciable because they rest on different constitutional and statutory bases with developed doctrinal tests.

## Conclusion

The Court concluded that partisan-gerrymandering claims are categorically beyond the competence of federal courts because no manageable constitutional standard exists to separate permissible political considerations from unconstitutional partisan entrenchment, leaving regulation to Congress, the states, and the electoral process.


Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. 684 (2019)