I'm Elizabeth Slattery, and I'm Tiffany Bates.

And welcome to SCOTUS 101, where we break down what's happening at the Supreme Court,

what the justices are up to, and other things related to our favorite branch of government.

This week, we're joined by Jess Braven to talk about the Supreme Court's punt on political jurymandering,

Florida man's second SCOTUS win, and some new grants.

The Supreme Court released five opinions on Monday of this week. There are 14 cases remaining,

but before we dig into the decisions, I'd like to welcome our guest, Jess Braven. He's the

Supreme Court correspondent for the Wall Street Journal. Jess, thanks for joining us for a second

time on SCOTUS 101. Always fun.

So let's get into the decisions.

First up, the court decided the long-awaited partisan gerrymandering case, Gill versus Whitford.

This was a challenge to Wisconsin's statewide legislative redistricting plan.

Twelve Democratic voters sued, arguing that the Republican-controlled legislature cracked and packed Democratic

voters to maximize the number of seats Republicans could capture. Chief Justice John Roberts wrote

the opinion for the court, holding that the challengers failed to demonstrate Article III standing

by not showing a particularized injury. The voters asserted a somewhat novel theory known as

the efficiency gap to support their claims of unconstitutional gerrymandering.

Under this theory, you compare each party's respected wasted votes across all legislative districts.

So this means votes cast for a losing candidate or votes cast for a winning candidate in excess of what he or she needed to win.

The challengers argued that by wasting Democratic votes, the state violated their First Amendment

associational rights and their 14th Amendment right to equal protection. Now, for the past five

decades, the court has been asked to decide what judicially enforceable limits, if any, the

...