On remand from the U.S. Supreme Court, a divided three-judge court in the Middle District of North Carolina found a Congressional redistricting plan to be an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. The case is Common Cause v. Rucho.
In a 5-4 decision that reversed the ruling of the District Court, the U.S. Supreme Court determined that the drawing of most of the disputed Texas districts did not violate the Constitution or the Voting Rights Act. The case is Abbott v. Perez.
In a North Carolina gerrymandering case, the U.S. Supreme Court summarily vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case for additional consideration in light of the Court\'s recent opinion of Gill v. Whitford. The case is Rucho v. Common Cause.
In opinions issued today, the U.S. Supreme Court decided two gerrymandering cases on procedural grounds. In an opinion in the Wisconsin case of Gill v. Whitford, the Court found that the plaintiffs did not have standing to challenge the legislature\'s redistricting plan. In an opinion in the Maryland case of Benisek v. Lamone, the Court determined that the District Court was within its discretion in denying preliminary relief to the plaintiffs challenging the legislature\'s redistricting plan.
Election Law at Moritz is nonpartisan and does not endorse, support, or oppose any candidate, campaign, or party. Opinions expressed by individuals associated with Election Law at Moritz, either on this web site or in connection with conferences or other activities undertaken by the program, represent solely the views of the individuals offering the opinions and not the program itself. Election Law at Moritz institutionally does not represent any clients or participate in any litigation. Individuals affiliated with the program may in their own personal capacity participate in campaign or election activity, or engage in pro bono representation of clients other than partisan candidates or organizations.