Louisiana v. Callais · ¶192

The last argument about “post-Gingles development[s]” worth mentioning is also the most dispiriting. Ibid. Seven years ago, this Court held in Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U. S. 684 (2019), that claims of political gerrymandering are not justiciable in federal court. That was, in my view, an ill-considered decision, whose adverse effects have never been more obvious than today, as this country's two major parties compete in a race to the bottom. But to its (modest) credit, the Rucho Court did not pretend that partisan gerrymanders were something in need of safeguarding. To the contrary, the Court conceded that they were “incompatible with democratic principles” and “lead[ ] to results that reasonably seem unjust.” Id., at 718. (The Court's rationale was only that federal courts lack competence to deal with gerrymanders, not that they were protected by law or beneficial as policy.) Today,…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.