Home › Case briefs › Constitutional Law

Vieth v. Jubelirer

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Constitutional Law

Constitutional LawPolitical gerrymanderingJusticiabilityPolitical question doctrineEqual ProtectionArticle I districtingpolitical gerrymanderingnonjusticiable

Facts

After the 2000 census, Pennsylvania had to reduce its congressional delegation from 21 to 19 seats. Republicans controlled both houses of the Pennsylvania General Assembly and the Governor's office, and plaintiffs alleged that the legislature adopted a partisan districting plan to disadvantage Democrats. After the original plan, Act 1, was invalidated on one-person, one-vote grounds, the legislature enacted Act 34 as a remedial plan. Plaintiffs, registered Democrats, alleged that Act 34's districts were meandering, irregular, and ignored traditional redistricting criteria solely for partisan advantage.

Issue

Are claims of unconstitutional political gerrymandering justiciable in federal court? If so, is there a judicially discernible and manageable standard under Article I, § 2, Article I, § 4, or the Equal Protection Clause for adjudicating the plaintiffs' challenge to Pennsylvania's congressional districting plan?

Rule

Political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions when there are no judicially discernible and manageable standards for resolving them. Neither Article I, § 2, Article I, § 4, nor the Equal Protection Clause provides a judicially enforceable limit on the political considerations that states and Congress may take into account when districting.

🔒

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 census, the legislature of Ohio redraws its congressional map. Voters aligned with the Liberty Party sue in federal court, alleging the plan was crafted to maximize the Civic Party's electoral advantage and that district lines disregard county boundaries for partisan gain.

Under the lead opinion's approach, how should the federal court treat the partisan-gerrymandering claim?

Explanation. The lead opinion concluded that partisan gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable political questions because no judicially discernible and manageable standards exist for resolving them. It specifically rejected relying on Article I, Section 2, Article I, Section 4, or the Equal Protection Clause as sources of a workable judicial limit on partisan considerations in districting.