This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The case concerns whether Maryland's congressional redistricting plan constitutes an excessive political consideration or impermissible partisan gerrymandering.
Background and question before the Court
Justice Kagan asked whether the redistricting constituted an excessive political consideration.
Justice Kagan asked whether the defense could distinguish between excessive and non‑excessive political considerations.
Justice Kagan asked why the Court should assume that the situation would stay the same.
Justice Alito asked for an example of impermissible political gerrymandering.
According to Justice Alito, justice Alito questioned whether the Maryland plan was evaluated using the correct test.
Justice Gorsuch asked about the role of the referendum in the case.
Chief Justice Roberts asked whether a partisan benefit alone is enough to infer intent to gerrymander.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg noted that leaders intended to reduce Republican representation.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts concluded the case was submitted.
- [1] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 4
- [2] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 5
- [3] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 11
- [4] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 12
- [5] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 19
- [6] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 46
- [7] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 56
- [8] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 68
- [9] 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdf, p. 71
What each side argues
Appellee Position
According to Michael B. Kimberly (Appellees), according to Michael B. Kimberly (Appellees), according to Michael B. Kimberly (Appellees), the appellees argue that when state officials use redistricting to burden a group of voters because of their political views, with the goal of making it harder for that group to win elections, and cannot show a legitimate governmental interest, the map must be redrawn neutrally.
Appellant Position
According to Steven M. Sullivan, the appellants contend that the map was competitive, with independent sources describing it as a plus‑two Democratic advantage.
According to Steven M. Sullivan, they argue that the test used by the Court abandons the essential concern that gerrymandering lets politicians override the people's will.
What happened at oral argument
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 1f83f8932f863420ac6e-r1-7c93090250b4c2bb.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 26, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.