How has the Supreme Court's decision in Shelby County v. Holder affected gerrymandering cases?

1. Why Shelby’s Removal of Preclearance Opened the Door Wide

The Shelby decision struck down the VRA’s coverage formula and effectively halted the Section 5 preclearance regime that had required certain jurisdictions to obtain federal approval before changing voting rules or maps. That procedural change transferred the initial burden from covered jurisdictions to plaintiffs who now must bring forward discriminatory intent or effect claims under Section 2 or other statutes, rather than relying on a prophylactic federal check before harm occurs ^{[1] [2]}. Legal observers and empirical studies documented a post-Shelby uptick in restrictive laws and redistricting plans in formerly covered states; proponents of restoration legislation argued that litigation under Section 2 is costly, slow, and less preventive than preclearance, leaving minority voters exposed while courts adjudicate harms ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Rucho and Allen: A Doctrinal Double-Edged Sword

Two Supreme Court rulings after Shelby produced contradictory signals for map challengers. Rucho declared partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable at the federal level, closing a federal courtroom avenue for challenges based strictly on partisan advantage and redirecting many disputes into state courts and state constitutions ^[1]. Conversely, Allen v. Milligan affirmed that racial gerrymandering claims remain cognizable under Section 2 and required Alabama to redraw a map, showing that race-based claims can still succeed even without Section 5 preclearance ^{[5] [1]}. The net effect is a narrower, more case-specific path to relief: partisan distortions are often untouchable federally, while race-based injuries can still be remedied under existing federal statutes, but only after protracted litigation ^{[5] [1]}.

3. Litigation Trends: More Lawsuits, Slower Remedies, Different Outcomes

After Shelby, states previously under preclearance pursued aggressive redistricting and voting-rule changes, prompting a wave of lawsuits under Section 2 and other statutes; observers counted dozens of pending redistricting challenges across multiple states contesting maps that disproportionately dilute minority voting strength ^{[5] [6]}. Section 2 lawsuits have become the principal tool to challenge racial gerrymanders, but these cases typically require extensive statistical and historical proof and often take years to resolve, leaving disputed maps in place through election cycles while plaintiffs shoulder litigation costs and evidentiary burdens ^{[4] [2]}. The result is intermittent victories like Allen but persistent uncertainty in many jurisdictions where plaintiffs face uphill procedural and substantive hurdles ^{[5] [6]}.

4. State-level Reactions and the Legislative Question Left Open

In response to Shelby, advocates and some lawmakers pushed for legislative restoration of preclearance formulas—most prominently the proposed John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act—while states moved in divergent directions: some enacted stricter voting rules and redistricting procedures that critics call suppressive, and others pursued reforms aimed at transparency and independent commissions ^{[4] [3]}. Congressional fixes have stalled amid political divisions, meaning federal restoration of preclearance remains elusive, and the mix of state-level reform, court remedies under Section 2, and continued litigation serves as the de facto system for addressing discriminatory maps ^{[4] [3]}. The competing incentives—states asserting autonomy versus federal efforts to protect minority enfranchisement—shape maps and the litigation landscape.

5. Where Alexander and Recent Cases Fit: The Next Frontiers for Race and Partisan Claims

Ongoing cases such as Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP underscore the interplay between race and partisanship and test whether courts will treat racial classifications that coincide with partisan outcomes differently; these decisions could narrow or expand the availability of race-based claims depending on how the Court frames motive, proportionality, and remedial thresholds ^[1]. Observers caution that absent legislative change, the future of gerrymandering litigation will depend on piecemeal judicial decisions applying Section 2 and state constitutional law, producing a patchwork of protections that varies by jurisdiction and by the specific legal theory advanced in each case ^{[1] [2]}.

6. Bottom Line: Enforcement Is Now Fragmented, Litigation-Heavy, and Outcome-Dependent

Shelby dismantled a preventive federal tool and triggered a litigation-centered regime where results depend heavily on where cases are filed, which claims are raised, and the court drawing them. Section 2 has proven capable of remedying some racially discriminatory maps, and individual state reforms provide alternate paths—but the combination of Rucho’s partisan barrier, the loss of preclearance, and the slow pace of Section 2 suits means many challenges to gerrymanders now face steeper procedural and evidentiary uphill battles ^{[2] [5]}. The landscape remains contested: courts have provided selective relief, advocates press for legislative fixes, and the practical effect of Shelby continues to shape who draws maps and how electoral power is allocated ^{[1] [6]}.