Fact check: What are the key Supreme Court cases that have shaped gerrymandering laws in the US?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court has fundamentally reshaped gerrymandering laws through several key decisions that have progressively weakened federal oversight of redistricting practices. The most significant ruling came in 2019, when the Court determined that federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far ^{[1] [2] [3]}. This landmark decision effectively removed federal judicial intervention from partisan gerrymandering cases.

Key cases that have shaped current gerrymandering law include:

• Davis v. Bandemer - An earlier case in the Court's gerrymandering jurisprudence ^[4]
• Rucho v. Common Cause - The 2019 decision that removed federal court oversight of partisan gerrymandering ^[4]
• Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP - A recent ruling that weakened voting rights laws and enabled partisan gerrymandering, particularly benefiting white voters ^[5]
• Milligan - Another significant case in the Court's gerrymandering approach ^[4]

The Court's recent order in Callais suggests it may further strike down the Voting Rights Act's safeguards against racial gerrymandering ^[4]. These decisions have given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting ^[1], with Texas Republicans planning to redraw congressional maps to further extend their dominance as a direct result ^[1].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that significantly impact understanding of gerrymandering's current legal landscape:

• Historical origins: The practice dates back to 1812 when Elbridge Gerry signed a bill redrawing Massachusetts state senate election districts ^[6], providing important historical context for this centuries-old political manipulation tactic.
• State-level variations: While federal courts have stepped back, some state courts have also ruled they have no authority to decide partisan gerrymandering claims ^[3], though this varies by jurisdiction and creates a patchwork of enforcement.
• Ongoing litigation: There are numerous active court cases across multiple states including Louisiana, New York, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Colorado ^[7], demonstrating that legal challenges continue despite federal court limitations.
• Racial vs. partisan gerrymandering distinction: The analyses reveal that while partisan gerrymandering has been largely removed from federal oversight, racial gerrymandering cases continue, as evidenced by the federal trial in North Carolina over allegations that Republican-drawn districts illegally eroded Black voting power ^[8].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it simply asks for factual information about Supreme Court cases. However, the question's framing could lead to incomplete understanding by:

• Implying active judicial oversight: The question suggests ongoing Supreme Court involvement in "shaping" gerrymandering laws, when the reality is that the Court has largely removed itself from partisan gerrymandering oversight entirely ^{[1] [2]}.
• Omitting the regressive nature of recent decisions: The question doesn't acknowledge that recent Supreme Court decisions have systematically weakened voting rights protections rather than strengthened them ^[5].
• Missing the racial impact: The analyses show that these decisions have particularly negative impacts on voters of color and democratic institutions ^[5], with rulings that undermine the Voting Rights Act ^[5] - context that would be crucial for a complete understanding of the Court's role.

The Republican Party and white voters benefit significantly from the Court's current approach to gerrymandering law ^[5], as these decisions enable continued manipulation of electoral districts to maintain political power.