Rucho v. Common Cause

Supreme Court of the United States · 2019 · Constitutional Law

139 S. Ct. 2484 (2019)

Updated July 29, 2026

Constitutional LawPartisan GerrymanderingJusticiabilityPolitical Question DoctrineElections ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentArticle I

Facts

North Carolina's 2016 congressional map was drawn by Republican legislators who openly instructed the mapmaker to produce a 10-Republican, 3-Democrat delegation, and the General Assembly enacted the plan on a party-line vote. Maryland's 2011 congressional map was drawn by Democratic officials to flip the Sixth District from Republican to Democratic, moving hundreds of thousands of voters and reducing Republican registration in that district, and it too was adopted on a party-line vote. Plaintiffs in both States alleged that the maps were unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders under the First Amendment, the Equal Protection Clause, the Elections Clause, and Article I, Section 2. The district courts agreed and enjoined continued use of the plans.

Issue

Whether claims that congressional districting maps are unconstitutional because they are excessively partisan are justiciable in federal court. More specifically, the question was whether the Constitution supplies judicially discoverable and manageable standards for resolving partisan gerrymandering claims under the First Amendment, Equal Protection Clause, Elections Clause, or Article I, Section 2.

Rule

Partisan gerrymandering claims are political questions and therefore nonjusticiable in federal court. Although excessive partisanship in districting may be incompatible with democratic principles, the federal judiciary lacks a plausible constitutional grant of authority and lacks clear, manageable, and politically neutral legal standards to decide when permissible partisan districting becomes unconstitutional.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

After the 2030 census, the legislature of Ohio adopts a congressional map designed to preserve a 9-6 advantage for the Liberty Party. A group of voters in Cleveland sues in federal court, alleging the map intentionally cracks and packs supporters of the Reform Party and violates the Equal Protection Clause.

How should the federal court rule on the voters' claim?

Explanation. The majority held that partisan gerrymandering claims are beyond the reach of the federal courts because there are no judicially discoverable and manageable standards for deciding when permissible partisanship becomes unconstitutional. That remains true even when plaintiffs plead intentional cracking and packing under the Equal Protection Clause. The Constitution does not require proportional representation, and federal courts may not adjudicate such partisan gerrymandering claims.