Fact check: Can the US Supreme Court intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases?

1. Summary of the results

The analyses provide a clear and consistent answer: No, the US Supreme Court cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases. This conclusion is based on the landmark 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, which established that federal courts have no authority to intervene in partisan gerrymandering disputes ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the majority opinion that "The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly" ^[4]. This ruling effectively declared that partisan gerrymandering is not illegal under the US Constitution and that federal courts may not hear suits challenging partisan gerrymanders ^{[2] [3]}.

The Court's decision has had significant practical consequences, with sources indicating that it has enabled increased partisan gerrymandering tactics and given states "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question lacks several important contextual elements that the analyses reveal:

• State-level alternatives exist: While federal courts cannot intervene, state courts may still have jurisdiction under state constitutions. Civil rights organizations are actively arguing before state supreme courts, such as in South Carolina, that state constitutions forbid partisan gerrymandering ^[6].
• Congressional intervention remains possible: The analyses indicate that unless "states take matters into their own hands or Congress steps in," partisan gerrymandering will continue unchecked ^[1].
• Racial vs. partisan gerrymandering distinction: The Court maintains different standards for racial gerrymandering cases. Recent rulings show the Court has made it "more difficult to challenge state redistricting plans as unconstitutional racial gerrymanders," but these cases involve different constitutional principles than purely partisan gerrymandering ^{[5] [7]}.
• Political consequences: The Court's ruling has "tilted governance and politics toward white voters" according to some analyses ^[5], indicating broader demographic and political implications beyond the legal technicalities.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself does not contain misinformation, as it is posed as a neutral inquiry. However, the question's simplicity could lead to misunderstanding without proper context about:

• The finality of the Supreme Court's position - this is settled law as of 2019, not an ongoing debate
• The distinction between what the Court can do versus what it has decided it will not do
• The alternative remedies available through state courts and legislative action

The analyses suggest that Republican politicians and conservative interests benefit significantly from the Court's hands-off approach to partisan gerrymandering, as it allows them to maintain electoral advantages through redistricting ^{[5] [7]}. Conversely, civil rights organizations and Democratic-leaning groups are pursuing state-level challenges, indicating they view the federal court system as no longer viable for addressing these issues ^[6].