October Term 2003 · Docket 02-1580
Can courts judge partisan gerrymandering claims?
the sides that brought the case seek a workable standard to prove partisan gerrymandering. the opposing sides argue such claims are inherently political and non-justiciable.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
the sides that brought the case argue the Davis v. Bandemer precedent remains valid.
the sides that brought the case claim lower courts created impossible factual hurdles.
the opposing sides argue politics is inherent in all redistricting.
the opposing sides claim any judicial test requires political judgment.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-45
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether federal courts can resolve partisan gerrymandering disputes. the sides that brought the case argue current standards are impossible to meet. the opposing sides argue courts lack the tools to decide these political questions.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 10, 2003.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-45
What each side wants
the sides that brought the case want a clear, manageable legal standard for proving partisan gerrymandering.
the opposing sides want the Court to declare partisan gerrymandering claims non-justiciable.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
What each side says
the sides that brought the case argue current lower court standards are irrational and impossible to satisfy.
the opposing sides argue redistricting requires political choices that courts cannot make.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
What the justices asked
How should courts distinguish between permissible political considerations and unconstitutional gerrymandering?
What specific evidence proves a group was shut out of the political process?
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-45
Why it matters
The outcome defines the role of courts in redistricting disputes. It determines whether voters can challenge extreme partisan maps in federal court. It shapes the balance between legislative power and judicial review.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
What happens next
This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 5-15 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 5-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 57, lines 43-45 — Transcript, file page 57, lines 43-45
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 29, lines 25-19 — Transcript, file page 29, lines 25-19
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 17-39 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 17-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 45-45 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 45-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 42, lines 47-37 — Transcript, file page 42, lines 47-37
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 51, lines 33-57 — Transcript, file page 51, lines 33-57
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 55, lines 31-9 — Transcript, file page 55, lines 31-9
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.