Afternoon round-up: Rucho v. Common Cause
on Jun 27, 2019 at 5:49 pm
This morning the court issued a 5-4 opinion in Rucho v. Common Cause, which was consolidated with Lamone v. Benisek, ruling that partisan-gerrymandering challenges to electoral maps are political questions that are not reviewable in federal court. Amy Howe covered the ruling for this blog; her coverage first appeared at Howe on the Court. Early coverage comes from Nina Totenberg, Domenico Montanaro, and Miles Parks of NPR; Robert Barnes of The Washington Post; Andrew Chung and Lawrence Hurley of Reuters; Greg Stohr and Andrew Harris of Bloomberg; and Sam Levine of HuffPost; Kimberly Robinson of Bloomberg Law has an article on Justice Kagan’s dissent. Additional coverage comes from David Savage and Mark Z. Barabak of The Los Angeles Times; Brent Kendall and Jess Bravin of The Wall Street Journal; and Ronn Blitzer and Bill Mears of Fox News; Ariane de Vogue and Devan Cole of CNN; Pete Williams of NBC News, while Erik Ortiz has an article for NBC News on the reaction to the decision. Still more coverage comes from Mark Sherman and Jessica Gresko of the AP; Devin Dwyer of ABC News; Sam Levine of HuffPost, and Adam Liptak of The New York Times, Michael Wines also has an article in the Times discussing the impact of today’s major decisions.
Early commentary comes from Erwin Chemerinsky of The Los Angeles Times; Ruthann Robson for Constitutional Law Prof Blog; the editorial board of The New York Times; Mark Joseph Stern for Slate; Chris Cillizza of CNN; Jessica Levinson for NBC News; Ian Millhiser for ThinkProgress; Carrie Severino for Fox News; and Charles Lane for The Washington Post, while more commentary from The Post comes from Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent. Additional commentary comes from Walter Olson for Cato; Howard Wasserman for PrawfsBlawg; Jonathan H. Adler for The Volokh Conspiracy; and Robert Verbruggen for the National Review.