Rucho v. Common Cause (2019)

For decades the Supreme Court left open whether partisan gerrymandering could be so extreme as to violate the Constitution, but it never adopted a standard for judging such claims. In 2016 North Carolina Republicans drew a congressional map that a legislative leader said was designed to elect 10 Republicans and 3 Democrats because he did not think it possible to draw a map with 11 and 2. In Maryland, Democrats had redrawn a district in 2011 to defeat a longtime Republican incumbent. Lower courts struck down both maps.

On June 27, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts, because there are no judicially manageable standards for deciding how much partisanship is too much. Roberts noted that the Court did not condone excessive partisan gerrymandering and pointed to state courts, state constitutions, independent commissions, and Congress as remedies. Justice Elena Kagan, dissenting, wrote that the gerrymanders debased democracy and that courts could measure them.

Since Rucho, challenges to partisan maps have moved to state courts, which have reached different results under their state constitutions. Pennsylvania's supreme court had already struck down a map in 2018, and North Carolina's supreme court struck down maps in 2022 before reversing itself in 2023. The ruling also made the mid-decade redistricting of 2025 and 2026 harder to challenge in federal court. Supporters say Rucho kept judges out of inherently political decisions, while critics say it left voters without a federal remedy.