Appellate Judge James Wynn critiqued the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that overturned his own opinion on partisan gerrymandering, calling the majority’s decision a “stark example of judicial activism.”

During an event held by Duke University’s Polis: Center for Politics on Tuesday, Wynn outlined why he believes the majority’s decision in Rucho v. Common Cause—which held that federal courts cannot handle partisan gerrymandering claims, when legislators draw electoral districts to benefit their party’s power—falls under judicial activism. He defined judicial activism as when judges avoid certain decisional tools normally used to adjudicate the case at hand.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]