October Term 2018 · Docket 18-726
Can federal courts strike down state redistricting maps for partisan gerrymandering?
Appellants seek to invalidate Maryland’s congressional map. Appellees defend the map’s legality.
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
Appellants argue the map prioritizes partisan advantage over community integrity.
Appellees argue the map respects traditional redistricting principles and local boundaries.
Justice Kavanaugh challenged the grouping of counties across the bay.
Justice Kagan questioned the extent of political motivation in the map.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-20 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-16
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
This case tests whether federal courts can review state redistricting plans for partisan bias. The parties dispute the map’s intent and legal validity.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
How the case got here
The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on March 26, 2019.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-26
What each side wants
Appellants want the Court to reverse the lower court and invalidate the map.
Appellees want the Court to affirm the lower court and keep the map.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
What each side says
Appellants argue the map violates constitutional limits on partisan bias.
Appellees argue the map reflects legitimate community interests and legal standards.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
What the justices asked
Justice Kavanaugh questioned the persuasiveness of the crossing-the-bay argument.
Justice Kagan asked if political consideration was excessive in the map design.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 20-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-20 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-16
Why it matters
The outcome defines the scope of judicial review over partisan redistricting. It shapes how states draw congressional boundaries. It impacts the balance of political power in state legislatures.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
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 10, lines 20-33 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 20-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 33-21 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 33-21
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 31-36 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 31-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 13-20 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 13-20
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 13, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 13, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 34-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 34-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 8-15 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 8-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 13-34 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 13-34
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 32-16 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 32-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-8 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 71, lines 25-26 — Transcript, file page 71, lines 25-26
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 23-25 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 23-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 34-7 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 34-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 25-16 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 25-16
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 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 32, lines 12-36 — Transcript, file page 32, lines 12-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 16-33 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 16-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 27-23 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 27-23
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.