Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Can gerrymandering be challenged in court, and what are the grounds for a successful challenge?
Executive Summary
Gerrymandering can be and is being challenged in courts, but the landscape has fractured: the U.S. Supreme Court has removed federal courts from deciding partisan-gerrymandering claims while leaving room for racial-gerrymandering and other constitutional challenges, which shifts the decisive battleground to state courts and Congress [1] [2]. Successful challenges today most often rest on state constitutional provisions, equal-protection claims under the 14th Amendment, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — though recent Supreme Court decisions and pending 2025 litigation show those federal avenues are narrowing [3] [4].
1. Why the Supreme Court’s 2019 Ruling Put Courts on a New Path — and What That Means Now
The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause declared that federal courts cannot adjudicate partisan-gerrymandering claims because they present nonjusticiable political questions without judicially manageable standards. That decision effectively barred federal constitutional challenges to partisan gerrymanders, redirecting litigants to state constitutions, state courts, and the political branches. The Court’s majority framed the problem as one for legislatures and Congress to resolve, not judges, which has produced a cascade of state-level litigation strategies and legislative proposals aiming to set different standards than those the Supreme Court said federal courts could apply [1] [5]. The Rucho framework remains the fulcrum shaping where and how challengers bring claims.
2. State Courts: A Patchwork of Outcomes and New Battlegrounds
Since Rucho, state courts have become the primary venues for partisan-gerrymandering claims, producing a patchwork of rulings: some state courts have deemed partisan challenges justiciable and struck down maps under state constitutional guarantees, while others have adopted Rucho’s nonjusticiability reasoning. Litigation filings surged across multiple states during redistricting cycles, with 18 states reporting partisan-unfairness claims; decisions vary widely depending on state constitutional text, judicial doctrine, and local politics. This fragmentation means challengers often face very different legal standards from state to state, and relief that succeeds in one jurisdiction may be unavailable a few miles away [6] [2].
3. Federal Routes Still Matter — Race, the Voting Rights Act, and the 14th Amendment
Although federal courts no longer decide partisan-gerrymandering claims, racial gerrymandering and Section 2 Voting Rights Act claims remain actionable in federal court. Courts still evaluate whether race predominated in drawing a district or whether a map dilutes minority voting strength. Recent Supreme Court cases illustrate the tension: a May 2024 decision required demanding proof that race predominated rather than politics when plaintiffs allege unconstitutional race-based drawing, raising plaintiffs’ evidentiary burdens [3]. Meanwhile a high-profile 2025 challenge to Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map centers on whether the state intentionally created a second majority-minority district — a case that could reshape Section 2 enforcement depending on how the Court treats the Voting Rights Act [4].
4. How Recent Supreme Court Signals Have Tightened the Rules for Plaintiffs
Recent Supreme Court decisions and oral-argument signals have made successful federal claims harder by emphasizing stringent standards of proof and by suggesting the Court may narrow core Voting Rights Act protections. The 2024 Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP opinion and subsequent rulings illustrate that courts are scrutinizing whether race was the predominant factor in mapmaking and whether plaintiffs have met demanding evidentiary thresholds. These doctrines force plaintiffs to develop robust, often technical demonstrations tying map lines to racial motives or discriminatory effects, increasing the cost and difficulty of federal litigation even as state forums remain open [3] [7].
5. Remedies, Remedies, Remedies — What Courts Can Actually Do When They Win
When courts find maps unlawful under state constitutions, the 14th Amendment, or Section 2, typical remedies include ordering new maps, appointing special masters to draw interim plans, or requiring legislatures to redraw districts under judicial supervision. The scope of relief often depends on the forum and the legal theory: state courts may craft remedies tailored to state law principles; federal courts considering racial claims must also weigh complex remedial constraints. Pending cases and divergent state precedents mean that even successful claims can yield different practical outcomes, from wholesale map redrawing to narrower, district-specific fixes [2] [6].
6. The Political Counterweights: Congress, Ballot Initiatives, and Strategic Litigation
Because judicial paths are uneven, reformers increasingly pursue legislative and ballot-box solutions — from federal bills to ban partisan gerrymandering to state-level independent commissions created by voters. Congress retains the power to set federal redistricting standards and could legislate new standards if political will exists, but the Supreme Court’s posture leaves such solutions squarely in the political arena. Litigation strategy also reflects this reality: advocates combine state constitutional claims, federal racial-vote claims, and public reforms in parallel, recognizing that courts are only one of several levers available to constrain partisan mapmaking [2] [7].