Judicial branch · Landmark case
Rucho v. Common Cause
588 U.S. 684 (2019) · Opinion of the Court
What you should know
This page explains the Court’s holding in plain language, where the official text lives, and what to check next.
Supreme Court findings are not news summaries. The controlling document is the Court’s opinion, plus any concurrences or dissents. Use this profile to understand the holding, then verify language, syllabus, and docket history on official sources before relying on a secondary account.
The Court held that claims of excessive partisan gerrymandering — drawing district lines to favor one political party — present “political questions” that federal courts have no authority to resolve. The Constitution gives no judicially manageable standard for deciding how much partisan advantage in redistricting is too much, so federal courts must stay out of these disputes entirely, leaving them to state legislatures, state courts, and Congress.
Background
This case combined challenges to a heavily Republican-favoring congressional map in North Carolina and a heavily Democratic-favoring map in Maryland. Voters in both states argued the maps were so extreme that they violated the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause, First Amendment, and Elections Clause. Lower federal courts had found real, provable partisan gerrymandering in both maps and ordered them redrawn.
The Supreme Court reversed, holding that while excessive partisan gerrymandering can be, in the majority’s words, “incompatible with democratic principles,” the Constitution simply doesn’t give courts a clear, neutral test for measuring how much partisanship in redistricting crosses a constitutional line — unlike racial gerrymandering claims, which remain fully reviewable in federal court under Shaw v. Reno.
Federal courts closed the door on partisan gerrymandering claims — permanently shifting the battleground to states.
After Rucho, anyone challenging a map as too partisan must rely entirely on state constitutions and state courts, since federal courts have declared themselves unable to hear the claim at all. Several state supreme courts have since struck down maps under their own state constitutions using standards Rucho found unavailable at the federal level.
Vote and authorship
| Majority | Roberts, C.J. (opinion of the Court) |
|---|---|
| Join | Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh |
| Dissent | Kagan, J., joined by Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor |
Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution.
Chief Justice Roberts · Rucho v. Common Cause
How it fits in government
Judicial branch
A rare instance of the Court declaring an entire category of constitutional claim “nonjusticiable” — not wrong, just permanently outside federal courts’ power to decide.
State & local government
State legislatures draw district lines, and after this ruling, state courts became the only remaining venue for challenging maps as excessively partisan.
Legislative branch
The majority pointed to Congress’s own Elections Clause authority to regulate redistricting as an available remedy — a power Congress has rarely used.
Official records visitors may need
SupremeCourt.gov
Opinions, docket search, rules, and Court information.
Oyez
Case abstract, oral argument audio, and justice votes.
Opinion text (LII)
Readable public text of the case.
GovInfo · U.S. Courts
Official publications and related federal court materials.
Related research paths
Shaw v. Reno
Racial gerrymandering claims remain reviewable in federal court, unlike the partisan claims this case forecloses.
Political question doctrine
The legal principle limiting what disputes federal courts will decide.
Gerrymandering and redistricting
How district lines get drawn, and where challenges can now be brought.
Landmark cases guide
Other holdings that define voting rights and judicial authority.