Vieth v. Jubelirer

Supreme Court of the United States · 2004 · Constitutional Law

541 U.S. 267 (2004)

Updated July 19, 2026

Constitutional Lawpolitical gerrymanderingjusticiabilitypolitical question doctrineEqual ProtectionArticle Inonjusticiablepolitical question

Facts

After the 2000 census reduced Pennsylvania's congressional delegation from 21 to 19 seats, the Republican-controlled General Assembly enacted a new congressional districting plan. Plaintiffs, registered Democrats, alleged that the legislature adopted a partisan plan and drew irregular, meandering districts that ignored traditional districting criteria solely for partisan advantage. Act 1 was later replaced with Act 34 as a remedial plan after a successful malapportionment challenge, but plaintiffs argued Act 34 was also an unconstitutional political gerrymander. The district court rejected the political gerrymandering challenge, and plaintiffs appealed.

Issue

Are claims that a congressional redistricting plan is an unconstitutional political gerrymander justiciable in federal court? If so, is there a judicially discernible and manageable standard under Article I, § 2, the Equal Protection Clause, or Article I, § 4 for adjudicating such claims?

Rule

Political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable when there are no judicially discernible and manageable standards for resolving them under the Constitution. Neither Article I, § 2, the Equal Protection Clause, nor Article I, § 4 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 adopts a new congressional map. Voters registered with the Liberty Party sue in federal court, alleging the map was drawn to maximize the Civic Party's electoral advantage and that district lines ignore county boundaries for partisan gain.

Under the governing Supreme Court plurality rule, how should the federal court treat the partisan-gerrymandering claim?

Explanation. The plurality concluded that political gerrymandering claims are nonjusticiable because no judicially discernible and manageable standards have emerged for resolving them. Mere allegations of partisan intent and disregard of traditional districting criteria do not create a manageable constitutional test. The point is not that partisan gerrymandering is approved, but that federal courts lack a judicially enforceable standard under the cited constitutional provisions.