“We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts. Federal judges have no license to reallocate political power between the two major political parties, with no plausible grant of authority in the Constitution, and no legal standards to limit and direct their decisions.” That was Chief Justice Roberts explaining the 5-4 decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of federal courts. (Yes it sucks, but no, it’s not our problem…) Justice Kagen led the dissent: “Of all the times to abandon the court’s duty to declare the law, this was not the one.”

+ In another closely watched (and close) decision, the Court blocked a citizenship question from the Census, largely because the proponents weren’t compelling (or honest) about their reasons for adding it. Roberts wrote that the Court “cannot ignore the disconnect between the decision made and the explanation given.” (I wish we could apply that rule more broadly across the political spectrum.) Once again, the decision was 5-4. It’s amazing, from the courts to the court of public opinion, just how many monumental decisions come down to the opinion of a single person.