Fact check: What are the US Supreme Court precedents on non-census year redistricting?

1. Summary of the results

The US Supreme Court has established several key precedents that significantly impact non-census year redistricting, though the Court has not directly addressed the specific timing of redistricting efforts outside of decennial census cycles.

The most significant precedent is *Rucho v. Common Cause* ^[1], which established that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases ^[2]. This landmark decision has emboldened partisan redistricting strategies and given states increasingly unfettered power in redistricting regardless of timing ^{[3] [2]}.

Core constitutional principles still apply to any redistricting effort:

• The "one person, one vote" precedent remains in effect ^[2]
• The 14th Amendment's requirement to count the "whole number of persons in each state" continues to govern apportionment ^[4]
• Voting Rights Act protections still constrain redistricting, though the Supreme Court has significantly weakened these protections in recent rulings, including a 2013 decision that gutted the preclearance provision requiring certain states to get federal approval before changing voting laws ^[2]

The Court previously upheld independent redistricting commissions in 2015, but given the changed composition of the Court, it's unclear whether the same conclusion would be reached today ^[2].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several crucial contextual elements that shape the current legal landscape:

Recent constitutional challenges are actively reshaping redistricting law. The Supreme Court is currently considering a Louisiana congressional map case that could further clarify the limits of states' ability to draw districts based on race and the relationship between the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause ^[5].

Trump's unprecedented census proposals add complexity to redistricting discussions. Trump has pushed for a new census that excludes people without legal status, which would be unprecedented and could impact redistricting ^[4]. However, experts emphasize that Trump cannot unilaterally order a new census, as this requires Congressional approval and changes to the Census Act ^[6]. The Supreme Court previously blocked Trump's attempt to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census and avoided ruling definitively on excluding undocumented immigrants from apportionment ^{[4] [6]}.

Democratic institutions and power balance concerns are central to this issue. Some argue that the Court's refusal to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases has imperiled the foundations of democracy ^[3]. The current legal environment has created significant latitude for states in drawing congressional districts, potentially enabling more politically motivated redistricting attempts ^[2].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question appears neutral and factual, seeking information about legal precedents rather than making claims. However, it omits the broader political context surrounding redistricting battles and fails to acknowledge the ongoing constitutional challenges that are actively shaping this area of law.

The question also doesn't address the practical reality that while there may be limited specific precedents on non-census year redistricting, the Supreme Court's recent decisions have fundamentally altered the redistricting landscape by removing federal oversight of partisan gerrymandering and weakening voting rights protections ^[2].

Political actors and parties benefit differently from the current legal framework: Republican-controlled states have generally benefited from the Court's hands-off approach to partisan gerrymandering, while Democratic constituencies and voting rights advocates have seen their protections weakened through the gutting of Voting Rights Act provisions ^[2].