Fact check: Can gerrymandered districts be challenged in court and what is the process?

1. Summary of the results

Yes, gerrymandered districts can be challenged in court, though the process has become more complex following recent Supreme Court decisions. The Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases, leaving it to states or Congress to address the issue ^[1]. However, gerrymandered districts can still be challenged in court under the Voting Rights Act or state constitutions ^[1].

The ACLU is actively involved in several court cases challenging gerrymandered districts across the US, including in Louisiana, New York, Mississippi, South Carolina, Alabama, and Colorado ^[2]. These cases demonstrate that legal challenges are ongoing and viable under certain circumstances.

State courts may still decide gerrymandering claims under their own constitutions and laws ^[3], even though the US Constitution does not provide an objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly ^[3]. Some courts use computer-simulated maps to identify fair alternatives when evaluating gerrymandering claims ^[4].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question doesn't address several important limitations and complexities in the legal challenge process:

• The role of state laws and constitutions varies significantly, making the process complex and often limited by jurisdiction ^[4]
• Federal legislative attempts to address gerrymandering have failed - the Freedom to Vote Act, which would have prohibited partisan gerrymandering, did not pass ^[4]
• Current redistricting fights are actively occurring in multiple states, including Texas, California, Missouri, Ohio, New York, Illinois, Indiana, and Florida ^[5], showing this is an ongoing political battleground

A specific example illustrates the complexity: In California, Republicans are suing to block Governor Newsom's plan to redraw congressional maps, arguing that the process violates the state constitution ^[6]. This case highlights how even states perceived as having fair redistricting processes can face legal challenges.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself is neutral and factual, seeking information rather than making claims. However, it lacks important context about the significant limitations placed on federal court intervention following the 2019 Supreme Court ruling ^[1].

Someone seeking to challenge gerrymandering might be misled into believing federal courts remain a viable option for partisan gerrymandering claims, when in reality federal courts have no authority to decide whether partisan gerrymandering goes too far ^[3]. The most viable path forward requires either state-level constitutional challenges or violations of the Voting Rights Act, which represents a much narrower avenue for legal recourse than existed before 2019.