The U.S. Supreme Court case Vieth v. Jubelirer (2003) dealt with the issue of political gerrymandering, a practice where electoral districts are drawn in ways that favor one party over another. The plaintiffs, Richard Vieth and others, argued that Pennsylvania's 2002 congressional redistricting plan violated the Equal Protection Clause because it was too politically biased towards Republicans. However, the Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision against them stating there were no judicially manageable standards to determine when political gerrymandering becomes unconstitutional. This ruling essentially left such issues to be resolved by state legislatures or Congress rather than federal courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Vieth v. Jubelirer, Justice Stevens argued that partisan gerrymandering is a justiciable issue and should be subject to judicial review. He contended that political considerations are an inevitable part of redistricting but when they go too far in favoring one party over another, it undermines democratic principles and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Justice Souter also dissented, proposing a five-part test to determine if partisan gerrymandering had occurred: intent to manipulate boundaries for political advantage; successful manipulation; entrenchment beyond what would naturally occur due to changing demographics or politics; lack of justification on other legitimate grounds such as compactness or respect for local government boundaries; and significant effect on election outcomes. Both Justices Breyer and Ginsburg agreed with these views while adding their own thoughts about how courts could manage this complex issue without becoming overly involved in politics.