Rucho v. Common Cause [2019]

588 U.S. ___ (2019) · Supreme Court of the United States · United States

Law of Democracylaw-of-democracypartisan-gerrymanderingpolitical-questionjusticiabilityLaw of Democracy

Issue

Are claims of partisan gerrymandering (drawing district lines to entrench a political party) justiciable under the Constitution?

Held

No. Partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, beyond the reach of federal courts.

Exam use

If a fact pattern describes a district drawn to benefit a political party (without a race-based motive), a federal constitutional challenge is likely dead after Rucho. Do not argue for a federal standard. Instead, look for alternative avenues: (1) state constitution claims (especially in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan); (2) claims under state law or state initiative/referendum that may limit partisan gerrymandering; (3) the Elections Clause (if the state legislature acted beyond its authority under state law—a claim upheld in Moore v. Harper); (4) the Voting Rights Act (if the map also dilutes minority voting strength). Also note that Rucho does not limit challenges to 'independent redistricting commissions' such as the one upheld in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Summary

The Supreme Court held in a 5-4 decision that partisan gerrymandering claims present a nonjusticiable political question. Federal courts cannot hear challenges to district maps drawn to entrench a political party in power because there are no 'discernible and manageable' standards for courts to apply to such claims. The Court indicated that the remedy for partisan gerrymandering must come from Congress or state legislatures, not the judiciary.

Facts

Two sets of plaintiffs challenged congressional districting plans in North Carolina (drawn by a Republican-controlled legislature) and Maryland (drawn by a Democrat-controlled legislature). In North Carolina, the map was designed to give Republicans a 10-3 advantage in the congressional delegation despite a near 50-50 statewide split in party vote share. In Maryland, the map flipped a district from Republican to Democrat. Both sets of plaintiffs argued that the maps violated the First Amendment (by penalizing voters based on their political affiliation) and the Equal Protection Clause (by diluting the weight of their votes).

Procedural History

In North Carolina, a three-judge district court struck down the map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. In Maryland, a three-judge district court also found a constitutional violation. The cases were consolidated for review in the Supreme Court.

Issue

Are claims of partisan gerrymandering (drawing district lines to entrench a political party) justiciable under the Constitution?

Held

No. Partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions, beyond the reach of federal courts.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitution gives Congress and the states primary responsibility for regulating elections. While some state constitution claims may be justiciable under state law, there is no 'judicially discoverable and manageable standard' for federal courts to measure the constitutionality of a partisan gerrymander. The Court found that proportional representation, symmetry, and other proposed tests did not provide a workable, neutral principle that could be applied consistently across cases.

Obiter Dicta

Justice Kagan dissented, arguing that extreme partisan gerrymandering does violate the Constitution and that manageable standards exist (such as the 'efficiency gap' or a 'partisan symmetry' test). She emphasized that the majority's decision leaves democracy vulnerable to gerrymandering that entrenches incumbents and undermines the link between votes and representation.

Reasoning

Chief Justice Roberts, writing for the majority, traced the history of gerrymandering claims. He acknowledged that the practice of partisan gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles' and that 'the excesses of such representation may be serious.' However, he found that the Framers of the Constitution committed the regulation of elections to the political branches. The Court had previously rejected partisan gerrymandering claims in Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) with a plurality opinion that produced no majority standard. The majority in Rucho concluded that it was time to 'send the issue back to the political branches.' The Court distinguished racial gerrymandering claims, which are justiciable because they involve 'the straightforward application of the strict scrutiny standard' and 'race' as a 'legislative classification'—unlike partisanship, which is a 'natural and unavoidable' part of districting.

Plain-English Explanation

Partisan gerrymandering is when a political party draws district lines to give itself more seats than it would get based on its share of the statewide vote. The Supreme Court said that this is a problem for Congress and state legislatures to fix, not federal judges, because there is no clear rule for judges to use to decide when a map is 'too political.' The decision does not allow racial gerrymandering or violations of the Voting Rights Act, and it does not stop state courts from using their own constitutions to strike down gerrymanders.

Essay-Ready Explanation Generator

Version 1 of 4

Reference to Rucho v. Common Cause (588 U.S. ___ (2019)) strengthens a Law of Democracy answer because the case reflects the principle that The Constitution gives Congress and the states primary responsibility for regulating elections. While some state constitution claims may be justiciable under state law, there is no 'judicially discoverable and manageable standard' for federal courts to measure the constitutionality of a partisan gerrymander. The Court found that proportional representation, symmetry, and other proposed tests did not provide a workable, neutral principle that could be applied consistently across cases. Applied to a problem question, the case should be used after identifying the issue as Are claims of partisan gerrymandering (drawing district lines to entrench a political party) justiciable under the Constitution? The stronger essay move is to connect the material facts to the court's holding, then explain whether the present facts support the same conclusion or justify distinguishing the authority.

Underlying Concepts

  • partisan gerrymandering
  • political question doctrine
  • justiciability
  • manageable standards
  • separation of powers

Precedents Applied

  • Vieth v. Jubelirer (2004) — plurality held partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable; Davis v. Bandemer (1986) — had left door open

Later Treatment

  • Moore v. Harper (2023) — independent state legislature theory rejected; state courts can review congressional maps under state constitutions

Key Passages

  • Excessive partisan gerrymandering may be 'incompatible with democratic principles' but the Federal Constitution does not provide a judicially manageable standard for adjudicating claims of partisan gerrymandering.

Significance

Rucho is the definitive statement on the justiciability of partisan gerrymandering claims in federal court. After this case, federal lawsuits challenging partisan gerrymandering cannot succeed. However, the decision does not affect state court challenges based on state constitutional provisions (e.g., the 'free and fair elections' clause in many state constitutions). It also does not affect racial gerrymandering claims or vote-dilution claims under the Voting Rights Act. For law students, the case is crucial for understanding the political question doctrine and the limits of judicial review in redistricting.

Related Cases

Exam Tips

If a fact pattern describes a district drawn to benefit a political party (without a race-based motive), a federal constitutional challenge is likely dead after Rucho. Do not argue for a federal standard. Instead, look for alternative avenues: (1) state constitution claims (especially in states like Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan); (2) claims under state law or state initiative/referendum that may limit partisan gerrymandering; (3) the Elections Clause (if the state legislature acted beyond its authority under state law—a claim upheld in Moore v. Harper); (4) the Voting Rights Act (if the map also dilutes minority voting strength). Also note that Rucho does not limit challenges to 'independent redistricting commissions' such as the one upheld in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission.

Revision Checklist

  • Name the issue before discussing facts so the marker sees the legal question immediately.
  • State the holding in one sentence, then use the ratio to explain why the court reached that result.
  • Use the citation and jurisdiction to show why this authority matters for the problem you are answering.
  • Pair this case with one supporting or contrasting authority if the question tests limits, policy, or exceptions.

Problem Question Use

If the exam fact pattern involves a federal challenge to a partisan gerrymander, cite Rucho to argue that the claim is dismissed for lack of justiciability. If the pattern involves a state law or state constitutional challenge, note that Rucho does not bar such a claim. The case is also a strong example for an essay on the political question doctrine: it applies the Baker v. Carr factors and finds a lack of manageable judicial standards.

Common Pitfalls

  • Thinking Rucho overruled Baker v. Carr (it did not; Baker established justiciability for racial gerrymandering and one-person-one-vote claims)
  • Confusing partisan gerrymandering (nonjusticiable) with racial gerrymandering (justiciable)
  • Assuming that state courts cannot touch partisan gerrymandering (they can, under state constitutions).

Sources