Fact check: What role does the Supreme Court play in gerrymandering cases?

1. Summary of the results

The Supreme Court plays a pivotal and controversial role in gerrymandering cases, fundamentally shaping how electoral districts are drawn across the United States. The Court's most significant intervention came through its 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause, which ruled that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, effectively removing federal judicial oversight from the redistricting process ^[1].

This landmark ruling has had far-reaching consequences, emboldening states to pursue aggressive partisan gerrymandering strategies that can dilute minority voting power and limit fair representation in Congress ^[2]. The decision has given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting," allowing partisan gerrymandering to continue largely unchecked at the federal level ^[1].

The Court's influence extends beyond partisan gerrymandering to racial gerrymandering cases. Recent rulings, including Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, have further weakened voting rights laws and made gerrymandering even easier to implement ^[3]. Additionally, the Supreme Court has expanded the scope of redistricting disputes, as seen in a Louisiana case where it ordered new briefing on legal questions that could further weaken the Voting Rights Act and limit states' ability to consider race when drawing district maps ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial pieces of context about the Supreme Court's gerrymandering jurisprudence:

• Ongoing litigation landscape: The ACLU is currently involved in numerous gerrymandering cases across multiple states, including Callais v. Landry in Louisiana and Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners in Mississippi, highlighting that gerrymandering battles continue despite the Supreme Court's federal court restrictions ^[5].
• State-level responses: While federal courts have been sidelined, the fight has shifted to state courts and legislatures, creating a patchwork of different approaches across the country ^[1].
• Political ramifications: The Court's decisions have significant implications for the balance of power in elections and particularly affect the representation of voters of color ^[3]. States like Texas have been able to pursue redistricting strategies that benefit Republicans, with political battles extending to state supreme courts ^[6].
• Beneficiaries of current system: The Supreme Court's hands-off approach particularly benefits Republican-controlled state legislatures and political operatives who can now engage in partisan gerrymandering with reduced fear of federal judicial intervention. Conversely, civil rights organizations like the ACLU and voting rights advocates are disadvantaged by these rulings and must now focus their efforts on state-level challenges.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, asking about the Supreme Court's role without making claims that could be considered misinformation. However, the question's simplicity may inadvertently obscure the complexity and controversy surrounding the Court's approach to gerrymandering.

The question doesn't reveal that the Supreme Court's role has been deliberately restrictive rather than actively regulatory. By asking "what role does the Supreme Court play," it might imply ongoing active oversight, when in reality the Court has chosen to step back from federal intervention in partisan gerrymandering cases ^[1].

The framing also doesn't acknowledge that the Court's decisions have weakened voting rights protections and made gerrymandering easier to implement, which civil rights organizations argue undermines democratic representation ^[3]. This represents a significant shift in the Court's approach that has profound implications for American democracy.