Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

Cite as:  588 U. S. ____ (2019) 

5 

Syllabus 

vide  the  basis  for  a  justiciable  claim.    See,  e.g.,  Pacific  States  Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co. v. Oregon, 223 U. S. 118.  Pp. 29–30.

(d) The  conclusion  that  partisan  gerrymandering  claims  are  not 
justiciable  neither  condones  excessive  partisan  gerrymandering  nor 
condemns complaints about districting to echo into a void.  Numerous 
States are actively addressing the issue through state constitutional 
amendments and legislation placing power to draw electoral districts 
in the hands of independent commissions, mandating particular dis-
tricting criteria for their mapmakers, or prohibiting drawing district 
lines  for  partisan  advantage.    The  Framers  also  gave  Congress  the
power  to  do  something  about  partisan  gerrymandering  in  the  Elec-
tions  Clause.    That  avenue  for  reform  established  by  the  Framers, 
and used by Congress in the past, remains open.  Pp. 30–34. 

318 F. Supp. 3d 777 and 348 F. Supp. 3d 493, vacated and remanded. 

ROBERTS, C. J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, 
ALITO, GORSUCH,  and  KAVANAUGH,  JJ.,  joined.  KAGAN, J.,  filed  a  dis-
senting  opinion,  in  which  GINSBURG,  BREYER,  and  SOTOMAYOR,  JJ., 
joined.