Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/18-422_9ol1.pdf
Page Number: 9

4 

RUCHO v. COMMON CAUSE 

Opinion of the Court 

Places  and  Manner  of  holding  Elections”  for  Members  of 
Congress.

After  a  four-day  trial,  the  three-judge  District  Court 
unanimously  concluded  that  the  2016  Plan  violated  the 
Equal Protection Clause and Article I of the Constitution. 
The court further held, with Judge Osteen dissenting, that
the  Plan  violated  the  First  Amendment.  Common  Cause 
v. Rucho, 279 F. Supp. 3d 587 (MDNC 2018).  The defend-
ants  appealed  directly  to  this  Court  under  28  U. S. C.
§1253.

While that appeal was pending, we decided Gill v. Whit-
ford, 585 U. S. ___ (2018), a partisan gerrymandering case 
out  of  Wisconsin.  In  that  case,  we  held  that  a  plaintiff
asserting  a  partisan  gerrymandering  claim  based  on  a 
theory of vote dilution must establish standing by showing 
he lives in an allegedly “cracked” or “packed” district.  Id., 
at ___ (slip op., at 17).  A “cracked” district is one in which 
a party’s supporters are divided among multiple districts, 
so  that  they  fall  short  of  a  majority  in  each;  a  “packed”
district  is  one  in  which  a  party’s  supporters  are  highly
concentrated, so they win that district by a large margin,
“wasting” many votes that would improve their chances in
others.  Id., at ___–___ (slip op., at 3–4). 

After  deciding  Gill,  we  remanded  the  present  case  for 
further consideration by the District Court.  585 U. S. ___ 
(2018).  On remand, the District Court again struck down
the  2016  Plan.    318  F. Supp.  3d  777.    It  found  standing 
and  concluded  that  the  case  was  appropriate  for  judicial
resolution.  On the merits, the court found that “the Gen-
eral  Assembly’s  predominant  intent  was  to  discriminate 
against  voters  who  supported  or  were  likely  to  support 
non-Republican  candidates,”  and  to  “entrench  Republican
candidates”  through  widespread  cracking  and  packing  of 
Democratic voters.  Id., at 883–884.  The court rejected the
defendants’ arguments that the distribution of Republican
and Democratic voters throughout North Carolina and the