Partisan gerrymandering
Gill v. Whitford
In brief
The Supreme Court wiped out the district court's judgment and sent the case back for more proceedings.
- Where it stands
- Decided
Decided 9-0 · June 18, 2018 · Opinion by Justice Kagan
- What it’s about
- Wisconsin voters challenged the state’s legislative map as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- Who it affects
- The district court's judgment no longer controls, and the Wisconsin voters' challenge returns to that court for more proceedings.
Summary: written with AI from the case record.
What it's about
The Supreme Court did not decide whether the map was unlawful; it said the voters had not shown district-specific harm giving them the legal right to sue (standing), wiped out the lower court’s ruling (vacated it), and sent the case back (remanded) for further proceedings on that harm.
The case raised whether courts can decide claims that a state legislative map unfairly favors one political party.
Question presented
1. Did the district court violate Vieth v. Jubelirer, 541 U.S. 267 (2004), when it held that it had the authority to entertain a statewide challenge to Wisconsin's redistricting plan, instead of requiring a district-by-district analysis? 2. Did the district court violate Vieth when it held that Wisconsin's redistricting plan was an impermissible partisan gerrymander, even though it was undisputed that the plan complies with traditional redistricting principles? 3. Did the district court violate Vieth by adopting a watered-down version of the partisan-gerrymandering test employed by the plurality in Davis v. Bandemer, 478 U.S. 109 (1986)? 4. Are Defendants entitled, at a minimum, to present additional evidence showing that they would have prevailed under the district court's test, which the court announced only after the record had closed? 5. Are partisan-gerrymandering claims justiciable?
What the Court decided
Holding
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Roberts, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas and Gorsuch, JJ., joined except as to Part III. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined.
- Result
- Vacated
The vote
What's next
The case returns to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin for further proceedings.
Documents
Docket activity
New analysis added
AI analysis generated: Case Briefing
AI analysis generated: Decision Record
Case data updated: summary, question_presented, generation_metadata
Case data updated: question_presented, extraction_metadata
Show 3 moreShow fewer
Opinion added: Gill
Opinion added: opinion
Brief added: Questions Presented
Sources
Primary materials plus reporting. Best-effort analysis: this explainer relies on a mix of primary materials and trusted secondary sources. Official filings and opinions remain authoritative.