Opinion: 588 U.S. 684 (2019)

HOLDING:  While it is illegal for a jurisdiction to depart from the one-person, one-vote rule or to engage in racial discrimination in drawing legislative districting maps, a jurisdiction may constitutionally engage in political gerrymandering.  Because partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts, the judgment of the trial court holding otherwise was vacated.

Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits challenging their States’ congressional districting maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.  The North Carolina plaintiffs claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Democrats, while the Maryland plaintiffs claimed that their State’s plan discriminated against Republicans.  The plaintiffs alleged violations of the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, § 2.  After the District Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, the defendants appealed directly to the Supreme Court.  

The question before the Court was whether political gerrymandering claims are claims of legal right that the Court can resolve or political questions that must be resolved elsewhere.  The Court noted that the Framers were aware of electoral districting problems and assigned the issue to state legislatures, to be checked by the federal Congress.  Courts do not play a role in deciding issues that arise from a State’s drawing of congressional districts, with two exceptions grounded in specific constitutional rights: one-person, one-vote and racial gerrymandering.

A jurisdiction may constitutionally engage in political gerrymandering because deciding how much partisan dominance is fair is a political question outside the competence of the federal courts.  The Supreme Court vacated the judgments of the District Courts and remanded with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.