Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2018 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

RUCHO ET AL. v. COMMON CAUSE ET AL. 

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

No. 18–422.  Argued March 26, 2019—Decided June 27, 2019* 

Voters and other plaintiffs in North Carolina and Maryland filed suits
challenging  their  States’  congressional  districting  maps  as  unconsti-
tutional  partisan  gerrymanders.    The  North  Carolina  plaintiffs
claimed that the State’s districting plan discriminated against Demo-
crats,  while  the  Maryland  plaintiffs  claimed  that  their  State’s  plan 
discriminated  against  Republicans.    The  plaintiffs  alleged  violations
of  the  First  Amendment,  the  Equal  Protection  Clause  of  the  Four-
teenth Amendment, the Elections Clause, and Article I, §2.  The Dis-
trict Courts in both cases ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the de-
fendants appealed directly to this Court. 

Held: Partisan  gerrymandering  claims  present  political  questions  be-

yond the reach of the federal courts.  Pp. 6–34.

(a) In these cases, the Court is asked to decide an important ques-
tion of constitutional law.  Before it does so, the Court “must find that 
the  question  is  presented  in  a  ‘case’  or  ‘controversy’  that  is  . . .  ‘of  a 
Judiciary  Nature.’ ”  DaimlerChrysler  Corp.  v.  Cuno,  547  U. S.  332, 
342.  While it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to
say what the law is,” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177, some-
times the law is that the Judiciary cannot entertain a claim because 
it  presents  a  nonjusticiable  “political  question,”  Baker  v.  Carr,  369 
U. S.  186,  217.    Among  the  political  question  cases  this  Court  has 
identified are those that lack “judicially discoverable and manageable
standards  for  resolving  [them].”  Ibid.  This  Court’s  partisan  gerry-
mandering  cases  have  left  unresolved  the  question  whether  such 
claims  are  claims  of  legal  right,  resolvable  according  to  legal  princi-

—————— 

*Together with No. 18–726, Lamone et al. v. Benisek et al., on appeal

from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.