Fact check: How have federal courts ruled on partisan gerrymandering cases in the past 5 years?

1. Why federal courts mostly moved out of partisan gerrymandering fights — and what that left behind

The Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause removed federal courts as a forum for partisan-gerrymandering claims, declaring such disputes nonjusticiable political questions and directing complainants to state courts or the political branches. That holding produced a surge of litigation in state courts and a wave of legislative reforms—statutory and constitutional—across a number of states as plaintiffs sought relief under state law and state constitutional provisions ^{[1] [5]}. Federal courts therefore have not produced a uniform national standard on partisan gerrymandering in the past five years; instead, the battlefield shifted to states and to federal claims grounded in race or the Voting Rights Act.

2. State courts picked up the slack — a patchwork of results and reforms

Since Rucho, voters and activists pursued partisan-map challenges in state courts in many jurisdictions; courts and state constitutions have produced diverse outcomes—some striking down maps, others upholding them, and some states adopting redistricting reforms like independent commissions. Litigation activity in 18 states reflects that remedies and standards now vary widely by state, meaning federal caselaw no longer provides a consistent nationwide rule on partisan gerrymandering ^{[5] [1]}. This fragmentation has produced unpredictable results for both parties and has placed emphasis on state-level legal doctrines and political reform campaigns.

3. Federal courts still decide race-based challenges that affect partisanship

Federal courts remain central when claims invoke race under the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act, and those rulings often reshape partisan maps indirectly. A recent federal district ruling in North Carolina rejected a Section 2 challenge and upheld the state Senate plan, finding the legislature did not rely on racial data and that coalition voting patterns undercut the plaintiff’s case ^[3]. At the same time, three-judge panels continue to manage complex federal redistricting litigation where new maps or election cycles prompt additional briefs and possible remedial orders ^[6]. These cases demonstrate that federal courts retain significant influence where race and minority voting rights are invoked.

4. The Supreme Court’s 2025 docket is shifting the legal terrain toward race and voting rights

Several October 2025 reports describe a Supreme Court receptive to narrowing federal protections under the Voting Rights Act and questioning longstanding race-conscious districting doctrines. The conservative majority’s signals that it may limit creation of majority-Black or Hispanic districts and reinterpret key VRA tools could weaken legal mechanisms that have been used to counteract partisan effects tied to racial bloc voting ^{[4] [7] [8]}. Those signals, reported October 15, 2025, suggest the Court may affect how lower federal courts judge race-based map challenges, with downstream consequences for partisan outcomes across jurisdictions.

5. How federal procedural posture and timing affected recent decisions

Timing and procedural posture have mattered: federal trials and three-judge panels have sometimes paused or reshaped their proceedings to account for new state maps or pending Supreme Court guidance, creating transitional uncertainty for maps slated for upcoming election cycles ^[6]. The October 2025 federal district and panel activity in North Carolina shows courts seeking updated briefs and reconsideration in light of new maps for 2026, illustrating how litigation often unfolds across multiple rounds and how federal courts adapt to evolving electoral maps and higher-court developments ^[6].

6. Competing perspectives: protection of minority voters versus limits on race-based districting

Advocates for robust Voting Rights Act enforcement warn that curbing race-conscious remedies will enable maps that diminish minority participation and entrench partisan advantage, while proponents of stricter limits on race in redistricting argue that race-based districting can itself be constitutionally problematic and politically divisive. The October 2025 reporting captures both concerns: some see the Court’s approach as weakening civil-rights safeguards; others frame it as correcting overreliance on race in map drawing ^{[7] [8]}. Federal courts are the arena where these competing legal frameworks are being reconciled, with significant variation in outcomes.

7. Bottom line for the past five years and what to watch next

Over the past five years federal courts have not provided a uniform remedy for partisan gerrymandering, thanks to Rucho’s removal of federal partisan claims and a consequential transfer of power to state adjudication and reform efforts ^[1]. However, federal courts remain pivotal on race and Voting Rights Act cases, and the Supreme Court’s 2025 docket and oral-argument signals indicate that forthcoming high-court rulings could reshape how lower federal courts approach racial and VRA challenges—potentially altering the indirect federal role in partisan map outcomes nationwide ^{[2] [4]}.