Rucho v. Common Cause
588 U.S. ___ (2019)
📋 Summary of the Opinion
Voters in North Carolina and Maryland challenged congressional maps as unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders. The Supreme Court ruled 5–4 that partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions beyond the reach of federal courts.
⚖️ Why It Mattered
This case closed the door on federal challenges to partisan gerrymandering, leaving the issue to state courts and legislatures. It was a major setback for efforts to curb extreme redistricting.
✅ What It Provided or Took Away
✅ Provided:
Clarification that the Constitution gives this power to political branches, not judges.
❌ Took Away:
The ability to bring partisan gerrymandering cases in federal courts. - Provided: Clarification that the Constitution gives this power to political branches, not judges.
🤔 Overreach or Proper Role?
Critics saw it as judicial abdication, refusing to address a threat to democracy. Supporters argued it was proper restraint, keeping courts out of inherently political disputes.
💡 Plain-English Impact Today
Federal courts won’t stop partisan gerrymandering. If voters want change, they must rely on state constitutions, state courts, or political reforms.