Our response on the Gill v. Whitford decision: pic.twitter.com/X9ZZC2CKgk — Democratic Party WI (@WisDems) June 18, 2018

Wisconsin Attorney General Brad Schimel issued a statement that touted the court's decision but did not comment on the fact the court had sent the case back instead of dismissing it all together. Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion noted that none of the individual plaintiffs in the case claimed to be in a district that was intentionally filled with a disproportionate number of Democrats ("packed") or drained of such voters ("cracked") in an attempt to give Republicans a near-guaranteed win. “But with enough plaintiffs joined together—attacking all the packed and cracked districts in a statewide gerrymander—those obligatory revisions could amount to a wholesale restructuring of the State’s districting plan.”

Kagan also wrote that a political party or other group might be able to bring a statewide challenge to a partisan gerrymander on the theory that it violated their First Amendment right to freedom of association. The Court’s constitutionally prescribed role is to vindicate the individual rights of the people appearing before it.”

Rather than dismissing the case entirely, the court sent the case back to the district court, which will allow the plaintiffs to argue their case again and show “concrete and particularized injuries using evidence ... that would tend to demonstrate a burden on their individual votes.”

The court similarly avoided ruling on gerrymandering in Benisek v. Lamone, which concerned partisan gerrymandering in Maryland. “I propose that we draw the maps to give a partisan advantage to 10 Republicans and three Democrats, because I do not believe it’s possible to draw a map with 11 Republicans and two Democrats.”

The result looked a lot better, but it had the same devastating effect on Democrats. While voting-rights groups hoping for a firm precedent-setting decision before the next round of map-drawing in 2021 expressed disappointment with the Court’s decision, it clearly doesn’t mean the end of the line for partisan gerrymandering arguments in federal courts. In 2004, the court upheld the practice of gerrymandering in a case concerning Pennsylvania’s map, finding that the practice of gerrymandering was outside the court’s purview and “nonjusticiable.” The court determined “no such standard [for ruling gerrymandering unconstitutional] has emerged in this case,” though they left open the possibility that the court could rule on partisan gerrymandering in the future.
The United States Supreme Court sidesteps two major partisan gerrymandering cases, allowing challenged voter redistricting maps to be used in this year's midterms.