Gill v. Whitford, the partisan-gerrymandering challenge to Wisconsin’s state assembly map, is one of the blockbuster cases of the Supreme Court’s 2017 term and one of the most important cases in decades concerning how Americans are represented in Congress and state legislatures. In a sure sign of Whitford’s significance, lawmakers, constitutional law professors, social scientists, civil rights and good government groups, and other concerned citizens have filed more than 45 amicus briefs, which run the gamut from constitutional theory to history to cutting-edge social science.
To help court-watchers sort through the briefs — which together account for more than a thousand pages of additional argument — the Brennan Center has prepared this annotated guide providing thumbnails of each brief’s most prominent or unique points.
This guide is the latest in a series of Whitford-related resources from the Brennan Center. For a thematic overview of the amicus briefs filed in support of the Appellees, visit our blog. And, for a detailed database of key filings from all phases of the Whitford litigation, visit our regularly updated case page. To download this guide in full, click here.
- Briefs Providing the Perspectives of Bipartisan Elected Officials on the Problems with Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering
- Briefs Showing That Geography Does Not Account for the Partisan Bias in Wisconsin’s Map
- Briefs Explaining How Social Science Can Help Detect Partisan Gerrymanders
- Briefs Explaining How to Create a Workable Doctrinal Test for Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering
- Briefs Explaining the First Amendment Harms Caused by Extreme Partisan Gerrymandering
- Briefs Examining Partisan Gerrymandering from a Historical Perspective
- Briefs Explaining How Partisan Gerrymandering Violates Constitutional Values
- Briefs Asserting the Constitutionality of Partisan Redistricting
- Briefs Explaining the Practical Harms of Partisan Gerrymandering
- Briefs Explaining the Viability of Rules That Limit Partisan Gerrymandering
- Briefs Expressing Concerns of Undue Federal Intrusion into Redistricting
- Briefs Offering Critiques of the Efficiency Gap
- Briefs Addressing Justiciability
- Briefs Challenging Appellees’ Standing
- Briefs Providing Additional Factual and Legal Context