Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 36.0

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

31 

Opinion of the Court 

can  address  the  problem  of  partisan  gerrymandering
because it must.”  585 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 12).  That is 
not  the  test  of  our  authority  under  the  Constitution;  that
document instead “confines the federal courts to a properly 
judicial role.”  Town of  Chester  v.  Laroe Estates, Inc., 581 
U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (slip op., at 4). 

What the appellees and dissent seek is an unprecedented
expansion of judicial power.  We have never struck down a 
partisan  gerrymander  as  unconstitutional—despite  vari-
ous  requests  over  the  past  45  years.  The  expansion  of 
judicial  authority  would  not  be  into  just  any  area  of  con-
troversy,  but  into  one  of  the  most  intensely  partisan  as-
pects  of  American  political  life.  That  intervention  would 
be  unlimited  in  scope  and  duration—it  would  recur  over 
and over again around the country with each new round of
districting,  for  state  as  well  as  federal  representatives. 
Consideration of the impact of today’s ruling on democratic 
principles  cannot  ignore  the  effect  of  the  unelected  and 
politically  unaccountable  branch  of  the  Federal  Govern-
ment assuming such an extraordinary and unprecedented 
role.  See post, at 32–33. 

Our  conclusion  does  not  condone  excessive  partisan
gerrymandering.  Nor  does  our  conclusion  condemn  com-
plaints  about  districting  to  echo  into  a  void.    The  States, 
for example, are actively addressing the issue on a number 
of  fronts.  In  2015,  the  Supreme  Court  of  Florida  struck
down that State’s congressional districting plan as a viola-
tion  of  the  Fair  Districts  Amendment  to  the  Florida  Con-
stitution.  League  of  Women  Voters  of  Florida  v.  Detzner, 
172 So. 3d 363 (2015).  The dissent wonders why we can’t 
do the same.  See post, at 31.  The answer is that there is 
no  “Fair  Districts  Amendment”  to  the  Federal  Constitu-
tion.  Provisions  in  state  statutes  and  state  constitutions 
can  provide  standards  and  guidance  for  state  courts  to 
apply.  (We do not understand how the dissent can main-
tain that a provision saying that no districting plan “shall