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.
How does the Supreme Court's decision in Rucho v. Common Cause impact state redistricting?
Executive summary
The Supreme Court in Rucho v. Common Cause [1] held that federal courts cannot adjudicate claims of partisan gerrymandering, declaring such disputes nonjusticiable political questions and removing a federal-court remedy for those claims [2]. That routing of partisan-gerrymandering disputes to state courts, state law, and the political branches has produced a patchwork of outcomes: some state courts have continued to limit partisan maps under state constitutions, while legislatures and Congress remain the primary routes for reform [3] [4].
1. What the Court actually decided — a hands-off federal judiciary
The majority opinion in Rucho concluded that partisan-gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of federal courts, effectively barring federal judicial remedies for claims that map-drawers manipulated districts for partisan advantage [2] [4]. The Court did not say all redistricting is immune from review: racial gerrymanders and other constitutional violations still can be litigated, but purely partisan claims are, per the decision, not for federal judges to decide [4].
2. Immediate practical effect — federal courthouse doors closed on partisan claims
Because federal courts were precluded from policing partisan gerrymanders, plaintiffs lost a key national forum for challenging maps that allegedly entrench one party. Advocates and some judges warned the ruling removed a major check on extreme partisan mapmaking at the federal level, shifting the battleground to states and to Congress [2] [5].
3. State courts and constitutions filled the vacuum — a state-by-state patchwork
State supreme courts and state constitutions became the primary avenue for challenging partisan maps; many state courts since Rucho have found state-law limits on partisan gerrymandering and struck down maps under their constitutions or statutes [3]. This has produced uneven protection: in some states voters and courts have imposed neutral redistricting standards or independent commissions, while in other states the party controlling the map process faces few legal constraints [3].
4. Political remedies and Congress: the alternative the Court emphasized
Rucho points to political branches — state legislatures, Congress, and voters via reforms like independent commissions — as the proper means to address partisan gerrymandering. The Court’s opinion referenced historical use of the Elections Clause by Congress and suggested legislative fixes are available, making federal legislation or state reforms the institutional response envisaged by the majority [2] [4].
5. How defenders of Rucho frame the ruling
Proponents of the decision argue it preserves judicial neutrality and avoids courts making inherently political determinations that could delegitimize the judiciary; they point to growing state-level reforms and role for Congress as appropriate democratic solutions [2] [4].
6. How critics respond — democracy and uniformity concerns
Critics say Rucho removed a uniform, national check on partisan manipulation of congressional maps, leaving voters’ protections to the variable patchwork of state law and politics and enabling entrenched partisan power where one party controls redistricting [5] [3]. Advocacy groups like Common Cause and the Brennan Center pressed that the decision forces reformers to fight at the state level or seek congressional remedies [6] [7].
7. Litigation tactics after Rucho — new strategies and labels
Post-Rucho litigation shows attempts to sidestep the federal bar by asserting state constitutional claims, racial-discrimination claims, or other legal theories; defenders of state maps often invoke Rucho to argue partisan-style claims should be dismissed as federal nonjusticiable questions [8] [3]. As a result, some plaintiffs frame challenges under state constitutional text or statutory guarantees that state courts can enforce [3].
8. The long view — inconsistent national landscape and where reform can occur
The ruling’s long-term effect is an inconsistent national landscape: where state constitutions, courts, or independent commissions are robust, partisan gerrymandering has been constrained; where political control remains unchecked, the decision has emboldened aggressive mapmaking [3] [4]. Congress remains an option to create uniform federal standards, but that requires political consensus the Court said is the proper mechanism [4].
Limitations and remaining questions: available sources do not detail every post-Rucho state decision or measure; they show a clear redirection of disputes to state systems and political remedies but do not specify all outcomes in every state [3] [4].