Wisconsin Gerrymandering Case — Sent Back to Lower Court for Further Proceedings

Updated: "[P]artisan  gerrymandering  injures  enough  indi­viduals and  organizations  in enough concrete ways to  ensure  that  standing  requirements,  properly  applied, will  not often or long  prevent  courts  from  reaching  the merits  of  cases  like  this  one.  Or from insisting, when they do, that partisan officials stop degrading the nation’s democracy."
—Justice Kagen, joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor, (p.2 of concurring opinion)
 ---
Wisconsin's Republican gerrymandering scheme is remanded back to lower court for further proceeding, the United States Supreme Court ruled today, (Howe, SCOTUSBlog).

The court sends the case back for further proceedings, "in the course of which those plaintiffs may attempt to demonstrate standing in accord with the analysis in this opinion," notes Amy Howe.

Decision is here.

Writes Howe:

The court explains that it would normally order the dismissal of the plaintiffs' claims, but this "is not the usual case. It concerns an unsettled kind of claim this Court has not agreed upon, the contours and justiciability of which are unreslved." So the court sends the case back to the district court to give the plaintiffs a chance to show that they themselves have suffered "concrete and particularized injuries."

by Amy Howe 9:21 AM

What happened is the swing-vote Kennedy is so weak and suspicious of liberty claims that the four liberal justices went along with remanding the case so plaintiffs, voters, can establish incontrovertible standing and harm inflicted by the Republican redistricting scheme in Wisconsin.

The concurring opinion by Kagen, joined by the three liberal justices, makes clear Kennedy as well is looking for a precedent-setting opinion that applies nationwide, not statewide in Wisconsin.

Writes Kagen, (p.2 of concurring opinion):

Partisan gerrymandering, as this Court has recognized, is  'incompatible  with  democratic  principles.'   Arizona State   Legislature v.   Arizona   Independent   Redistricting  Comm’n,  576  U.  S.  ___,  ___  (2015)  (slip  op.,  at  1)  (quoting  Vieth v.  Jubelirer,  541  U.  S.  267,  292  (2004)  (plurality  opinion); alterations omitted).
More effectively every day, that practice enables politicians to entrench themselves in power  against  the  people’s  will.  And  only  the  courts  can do anything to remedy the problem, because gerrymanders benefit those who control the political  branches.  None  of  those  facts  gives  judges  any  excuse  to  disregard  Article III’s (United States Constitution and standing to litigate) demands. The Court is right to say they were not met here. But partisan  gerrymandering  injures  enough  indi­viduals and  organizations  in enough concrete ways to  ensure  that  standing  requirements,  properly  applied, will  not often or long  prevent  courts  from  reaching  the merits  of  cases  like  this  one.  Or  from  insisting,  when they do, that partisan officials stop degrading the nation’s democracy.  

Liberty-loving voters just have to wait another year, and hope Kennedy does not retire.