Amy Howe

Mar 19 2018

Justices won’t block new congressional maps in Pennsylvania

One day before the filing deadline for the primary election, the Supreme Court rejected a request by Republican lawmakers in Pennsylvania to block a remedial plan adopted by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court from going into effect. The ruling means that the state’s 2018 congressional elections will likely go forward under the new maps, which could allow Democrats to pick up three or four more of the state’s 18 seats in the House of Representatives – which could in turn increase Democrats’ chances of taking back the House.

This was the second trip for Republican lawmakers to the Supreme Court in the last two months. In early February, they asked the justices to block a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court so that they could appeal the state court’s finding that the map violated the Pennsylvania constitution because it was the product of partisan gerrymandering – that is, the Republican-controlled state legislature had drawn it to obtain an advantage over Democrats. Justice Samuel Alito, who handles emergency appeals from the geographic region that includes Pennsylvania, denied that request on February 5 without even referring it to the full Supreme Court – a move that suggests that he did not regard the case as a particularly meritorious one.

The redistricting dispute then returned to Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court adopted a remedial plan. The Republican lawmakers urged the justices to step in, telling them (among other things) that the state supreme court had violated the Constitution’s elections clause, which gives state legislatures the authority to regulate federal congressional elections. This time Alito referred the request to the full court, but the justices did not act for nearly three weeks; when they finally did take action this afternoon, they issued only a terse one-sentence order, without any recorded dissents. There is no way to know why the court waited so long to rule on the lawmakers’ request, although at least one election law expert has speculated that the justices were waiting for a three-judge district court in Pennsylvania to act on a challenge to the new plan, which it did this afternoon.

This post was also published on SCOTUSblog.

Amy L Howe
Until September 2016, Amy served as the editor and reporter for SCOTUSblog, a blog devoted to coverage of the Supreme Court of the United States; she continues to serve as an independent contractor and reporter for SCOTUSblog. Before turning to full-time blogging, she served as counsel in over two dozen merits cases at the Supreme Court and argued two cases there. From 2004 until 2011, she co-taught Supreme Court litigation at Stanford Law School; from 2005 until 2013, she co-taught a similar class at Harvard Law School. She has also served as an adjunct professor at American University’s Washington College of Law and Vanderbilt Law School. Amy is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and holds a master’s degree in Arab Studies and a law degree from Georgetown University.
Tweets by @AHoweBlogger
Recent ScotusBlog Posts from Amy
  • David Souter, retired Supreme Court justice, dies at 85
  • Venezuelan TPS recipients tell justices to let status stand
  • Government asks justices to allow DHS to revoke parole for a half-million noncitizens
More from Amy Howe

Recent Posts

  • Court appears to back legality of HHS preventative care task force
  • Justices take up Texas woman’s claim against USPS
  • Supreme Court considers parents’ efforts to exempt children from books with LGBTQ themes
  • Justices temporarily bar government from removing Venezuelan men under Alien Enemies Act
  • Court hears challenge to ACA preventative-care coverage
Site built and optimized by Sound Strategies