Householder v. A. Philip Randolph Inst., et al

Whether partisan gerrymandering cases lack justiciability and, if not, what standards govern such claims.

After Ohio’s Governor signed into law a plan to redraw congressional and state legislative districts in 2011, multiple parties claimed the apportionment plan constituted partisan gerrymandering that maximized the number of Republican congressional and legislative representatives in violation of the First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause. A three-judge federal district court held that Ohio’s congressional map constituted an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander and required Ohio’s General Assembly to repeal and replace its congressional map based on lower court cases under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican legislators filed two separate emergency applications requesting that the Court stay the district court’s injunction pending appeal, or vacate and remand the district court’s decision once the Court gave holdings on the lower court cases relied upon by the district court. Petitioners argued that the Court would likely note probable jurisdiction based on a historic lack of refusal and that a fair prospect existed that the Court would vote to reverse or vacate the district court’s decision based on the likelihood of the Court deeming partisan gerrymandering constitutional or that claims challenging partisan gerrymanders lack justiciability, or based on the presentation of a new test if the Court recognized the ability to challenge partisan gerrymandering. In a summary disposition order, the Supreme Court consolidated Petitoner's writ with that of intervenor-defendants, Chabot v. A. Philip Randolph Inst. et al, No. 18A1288 (U.S.), seeking direct vacated the district court’s judgment, and remanded to the district court for further consideration in light of Rucho v. Common Cause, 588 U.S. ___ (2019). VACATED AND REMANDED.