Fact check: How have courts ruled on gerrymandering cases in states with Republican-controlled legislatures?

1. Summary of the results

Courts have ruled decisively in favor of allowing partisan gerrymandering in states with Republican-controlled legislatures, primarily through the Supreme Court's landmark 2019 ruling that removed federal courts' power to intervene in partisan gerrymandering cases ^{[1] [2]}. This ruling has given states with Republican-controlled legislatures "increasingly unfettered power in redistricting" and allowed them to redraw congressional maps for partisan gain ^[1].

Texas serves as the primary example of how Republican-controlled states are leveraging this judicial precedent, actively redrawing congressional maps to "extend their dominance" ^[1]. The analyses show that many states now have congressional delegations that do not closely reflect the overall political leanings of their populations due to partisan gerrymandering, with Texas, California, and North Carolina cited as specific examples ^[3].

However, courts continue to address racial gerrymandering cases under the Voting Rights Act. Active litigation includes:

• Callais v. Landry challenging Louisiana's congressional map ^[4]
• Nairne v. Landry challenging Louisiana's House and Senate legislative maps ^[4]
• Mississippi State Conference of the NAACP v. State Board of Election Commissioners challenging Mississippi's districting maps ^[4]
• An ongoing North Carolina lawsuit over allegations that Republican mapmakers illegally eroded Black voting power ^[5]

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The original question omits several critical contextual factors that shape the current gerrymandering landscape:

Democratic Response and Limitations: While Republicans benefit from the Supreme Court's ruling, Democrats have voluntarily limited their own gerrymandering capabilities in states like California, where they established a nonpartisan commission to draw congressional maps, making it "more difficult for them to respond to Texas's redistricting efforts" ^[2].

Voting Rights Act Protections: The analyses reveal that while partisan gerrymandering is now largely unrestricted, the Voting Rights Act still provides some restrictions on how states draw districts, particularly regarding racial gerrymandering ^[1]. This creates a dual legal framework where partisan manipulation is permitted but racial discrimination remains prohibited.

Ongoing Legal Battles: The question doesn't acknowledge that multiple cases are still actively being litigated, including a significant Louisiana redistricting case that the Supreme Court has postponed to its next term, which "may have implications for voting rights" ^{[6] [7]}.

Native American Voting Rights: The analyses highlight ongoing struggles beyond traditional gerrymandering, such as the Chouteau County, Montana lawsuit challenging at-large voting systems that prevent Native voters from electing candidates of their choice ^[7].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains an implicit assumption that may lead to biased interpretation by focusing exclusively on Republican-controlled states. This framing suggests that gerrymandering is primarily a Republican practice, when the analyses show that both parties engage in gerrymandering where they have control ^[2].

The question also lacks temporal context, failing to acknowledge that the current legal landscape was fundamentally shaped by the Supreme Court's 2019 decision, which represents a relatively recent and dramatic shift in judicial precedent ^{[1] [2]}.

Additionally, the question's narrow focus on "Republican-controlled legislatures" obscures the broader systemic issue of how the Supreme Court's conservative majority has enabled partisan gerrymandering across the political spectrum by removing federal judicial oversight entirely ^[2]. This framing could mislead readers into viewing gerrymandering as a partisan issue rather than a structural problem with the current legal framework.