Supreme Court finds that courts can't rule on partisan gerrymandering cases

The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday that political partisan gerrymandering cases present a question that courts cannot decide.

The justices made the ruling in a pair of cases presented over district maps in Maryland and North Carolina, alleged to be instances of unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders.

Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court's majority opinion that federal courts cannot consider such challenges.

The opinion vacates previous rulings on the district maps in Maryland and North Carolina, and requests that the cases be dismissed "for lack of jurisdiction."

The split ruling was along ideological lines.

Roberts said in the majority opinion that none of the tests recommended by the parties in the case "provides a solid grounding for judges to take the extraordinary step of reallocating power and influence between political parties."

He added that allowing courts to rule in such cases would be an overstep of the court's judicial authorities, and he noted that cases over partisan gerrymandering often last in the courts for years, signaling that the court would be unwilling to repeatedly take up challenges to district maps.

"Excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust. But the fact that such gerrymandering is 'incompatible with democratic principles,' does not mean that the solution lies with the federal judiciary," Roberts wrote.

"We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions."

In a stinging rebuttal, Justice Elena KaganElena KaganSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE wrote: "For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."

"In giving such gerrymanders a pass from judicial review, the majority goes tragically wrong," she added.

Kagan underscored her level of opposition to the ruling by reading part of her dissent from the bench.

Conservative Justices Clarence ThomasClarence ThomasSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute EXCLUSIVE: Trump: I would fill Supreme Court vacancy before 2020 election MORE, Samuel AlitoSamuel AlitoSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Supreme Court rules against newspaper over information request, giving confidentiality win to businesses MORE, Neil GorsuchNeil GorsuchSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Washington owes Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch an apology MORE and Brett KavanaughBrett Michael KavanaughSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Susan Collins: Trump's 'she's not my type' defense is 'extremely bizarre' MORE joined Roberts's majority opinion.

Justices Ruth Bader GinsburgRuth Bader GinsburgSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE, Stephen BreyerStephen BreyerSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute Biden has a lot at stake in first debate MORE and Sonia SotomayorSonia SotomayorSupreme Court declines to overturn doctrine on regulatory clarity Gorsuch joins liberal justices in ruling against federal criminal statute The Hill's Morning Report - In exclusive interview, Trump talks Biden, Iran, SCOTUS and reparations MORE — the court's other liberal members — sided with Kagan's dissent.

Democrats in North Carolina had challenged congressional districts drawn by Republicans, claiming that the state GOP crafted the map to favor their party.

And Republicans in Maryland had claimed that the state’s map was drawn in such a way that it intentionally eliminated a GOP congressional seat.

Thursday's ruling also likely means that other pending litigation challenging other state's congressional districts as partisan gerrymanders are likely to fail.