Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
How has the Supreme Court's ruling on Rucho v. Common Cause impacted gerrymandering cases?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause declared that claims of partisan gerrymandering present nonjusticiable political questions, removing federal courts as a general forum to adjudicate partisan-map challenges and shifting the principal battleground to state courts, state statutes, independent commissions, and Congress [1] [2]. Since the ruling, commentators and subsequent litigation have documented both a measurable increase in extreme partisan maps in some states and a parallel rise in state-law and process-based responses, producing a patchwork of remedies and continued legal contention [3] [4].
1. The Court’s line in the sand — federal courts step back, politics step in
Rucho held that federal courts lack judicially manageable standards to decide when partisan gerrymandering violates the Constitution, producing a 5–4 result authored by Chief Justice Roberts that barred federal relief for partisan gerrymandering claims and framed the problem as a political question for legislatures and Congress, not the federal judiciary [1] [5]. Dissenting justices warned the decision would permit entrenched partisan map-drawing to persist, arguing that the majority abandoned a constitutional role to police election fairness; those dissents highlighted concerns that removing federal review could exacerbate polarization and reduce electoral competitiveness [2]. The ruling therefore created an explicit doctrinal boundary: federal courts remain open to racial-gerrymandering claims but not to claims framed purely as partisan injuries [6].
2. Immediate downstream effects — maps, measurements, and allegations of worsening bias
Within redistricting cycles after Rucho, researchers and advocates documented worsening partisan bias in certain states’ maps, with examples cited including Florida, Georgia, and Texas showing increased measures of partisan skew during the 2020 cycle; critics argue Rucho enabled more aggressive partisan packing and cracking where state-level checks were weak [3]. Supporters of the decision contend that the Court simply returned the matter to the political branches and state processes and that reform is appropriately democratic, not judicial, while opponents note that without a federal backstop, voters in some states face less protection from extreme partisanship in map-drawing [2] [5]. The empirical picture diverges by state: some jurisdictions saw clearer partisan entrenchment, others adopted constraints or commissions that reduced measurable bias [3] [4].
3. State courts and statutes seize the initiative — a fractured national landscape
Rucho’s limitation on federal remedies spurred state-court litigation under state constitutions and increased adoption of independent redistricting commissions and procedural reforms, producing significant variance across the country: some state supreme courts stepped in to strike maps under state-law guarantees, while other states enshrined commission-based or process-focused rules to limit partisan influence [3] [4]. These developments mean redistricting outcomes now depend heavily on state constitutional text, the composition of state judiciaries, and ballot-driven reforms, generating a mosaic of protections rather than a uniform federal standard. The result is legal unpredictability: plaintiffs win relief in certain state systems but face defeat where legislatures or state courts are less receptive.
4. The race-versus-party tangle — racial gerrymandering remains justiciable and creates complications
Although Rucho foreclosed federal partisan claims, the Court preserved the traditional prohibition against race-based districting, leaving federal courts responsible for disentangling race from partisanship when plaintiffs allege racial discrimination [6]. That legal reality has produced complex litigation where defendants may argue that an obviously partisan map is justified by race-related considerations or vice versa, requiring courts to apply doctrines like race-exclusivity or totality-of-the-circumstances analyses to determine whether race, not politics, drove a map’s design [6]. Observers note this creates both loopholes and obligations: map-drawers may exploit the party/race line to defend partisan maps, while courts must vigilantly enforce racial-equality protections that remain within federal reach.
5. Looking ahead — no single fix, continued political and legal contention
Rucho’s practical effect is to decentralize redistricting remedies and intensify nonjudicial reforms, political campaigns, and state-level litigation as the primary mechanisms to address partisan gerrymandering [3] [5]. Congress retains theoretical authority to legislate standards or remedies, but political obstacles make federal statutory solutions uncertain; meanwhile, grassroots initiatives, ballot measures, and state-court rulings are the most visible levers for change, producing uneven protection for voters across states [3] [4]. The post-Rucho era is therefore characterized by a fragmented legal regime, heightened stakes in state politics, and ongoing academic and empirical debate about whether these decentralized responses will sufficiently curb extreme partisan map-drawing.