Britannica Sources used in this answer

Why can partisan gerrymandering claims not be decided by federal courts under Rucho v. Common Cause?

Created from Britannica articles using AI. AI can make mistakes, so verify using Britannica articles.

A person ascends the steps of the west facade of the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., with its tall columns and a round fountain in the foreground. — Major Supreme Court Cases from the 2025–26 Term The west facade of the U.S. Supreme Court building, Washington, D.C.

In Rucho v. Common Cause (2019), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that claims of partisan gerrymandering are nonjusticiable, meaning they present political questions that are beyond the reach of federal courts.123

The Court reached this conclusion because it determined that there are no "judicially discernible and manageable standards" available to adjudicate such claims. While previous cases, such as Davis v. Bandemer (1986), had explored the possibility of finding such standards under the equal protection clause, the majority in Rucho ultimately rejected the feasibility of identifying objective criteria to resolve these disputes.142

By classifying these challenges as political questions, the Court affirmed the principle that issues regarding the fairness of electoral district boundaries are more appropriately addressed by the legislative or executive branches of government rather than the judiciary. Consequently, this ruling established that federal courts lack the authority to intervene in partisan redistricting, leaving such matters to be challenged, if at all, under state laws or state constitutions.1526