WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court rejected cases seeking to redraw political boundaries in North Carolina and Maryland on Thursday, ending Democrats' chances of getting new Michigan districts in place by 2020 as a court panel had ordered.

Significantly, it also appeared to take the federal judiciary out of the business of deciding partisan gerrymandering cases altogether, leaving it to voters, the states and Congress to decide when one party has gone too far in limiting its rivals' election chances.

"Partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in a decision that split the court 5-4.

In the cases rejected Thursday, Democrats in North Carolina had complained of districts drawn in such a way as to elect and protect Republicans while, in the Maryland case, Republicans complained of gerrymandered districts drawn by Democrats.

Michigan Democrats and other groups had been pressing for new districts ahead of 2020 and were bolstered by a lower federal court panel ordering new lines in April.

Now, that ruling is almost certain to be set aside because of Thursday's decisions in the North Carolina and Maryland cases, though a new bipartisan commission — put in place by a referendum last year — will take over drawing Michigan's political lines for 2022.

Roberts says no test fair enough to use

In his majority opinion, Roberts said no test proposed is precise enough to give the courts a politically neutral means of judging when "political gerrymandering has gone too far."

He was joined in the decision by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh. the court's conservative wing.

"Federal courts are not equipped to apportion political power as a matter of fairness, nor is there any basis for concluding that they were authorized to do so," Roberts wrote.

"The Constitution supplies no objective measure for assessing whether a districting map treats a political party fairly. ... Even the most sophisticated districting maps cannot reliably account for some of the reasons voters prefer one candidate over another, or why their preferences may change," he said.

Liberal justices, politicians stunned

On the progressive wing of the court and elsewhere, the feeling was one of shock.

"For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. "And not just any constitutional violation. The partisan gerrymanders in these cases deprived citizens of the most fundamental of their constitutional rights: the rights to participate equally in the political process."

The nonpartisan League of Women Voters, which had pushed the cause of redrawing boundaries in Michigan and elsewhere, called the decision "devastating."

“Today’s U.S. Supreme Court decision is disappointing and will allow those who rigged Michigan’s elections based on partisanship off the hook in federal courts," said Judy Karandjeff, president of the League of Women Voters of Michigan.

Michigan Democrats denounce decision, call for action

Michigan Democrats blasted the decision, with state party Chairwoman Lavora Barnes saying it displayed "unfortunate reasoning" on the part of the court's conservative majority.

"To protect our rights, we must cast our votes for people that share our values and are concerned for the hardworking families of Michigan and their challenges," she said.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell, D-Dearborn, said the ruling "ensured that existing partisan gerrymanders will remain in place and people’s right to participate in free and fair elections is only further diluted." She called for Congress to act on legislation which would put redistricting in the hands of independent commissions, not partisan politicians.

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Mich, noted that the decision protects Michigan districts that have "been widely regarded as some of the most gerrymandered districts in the country."

And Michigan Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson, a Democrat who had proposed a settlement that could have redrawn some state legislative districts and resulted in some elections being held earlier than anticipated, said the decision "closes a vital door for citizens seeking recourse in a fundamental part of our representative democracy."

Republicans praise ruling, saying court made right choice

Republicans, however, praised the decision, though some withheld any overt declarations of victory since, technically, the Michigan case remains active until Thursday's precedent is applied formally to that case by the Supreme Court, a move that is almost certainly just a matter of time.

"Today's ruling suggests that a federal court should not be in the business of redrawing Michigan's Senate maps midterm, as we have argued all along. However, our case is still pending and we await action from the Supreme Court regarding Michigan," said Amber McCann, press secretary to Senate Majority Leader Mike Shirkey, R-Clarklake, who is a party to the case.

Michigan Republican Party Chairwoman Laura Cox applauded the decision, noting that it effectively ends what she called attempts by Benson — as the state's top elections official — "to redraw our state’s legislative districts one year early and benefit her political party at the expense of Michigan voters."

U.S. Rep. Bill Huizenga, R-Zeeland, also put out a statement calling the decision "correct."

“I have consistently said that the courts should not be in the business of determining legislative boundaries," he said. "These decisions should be made by legislators who are accountable to the people they represent.”

Huizenga's district was not one of the nine congressional districts in question in the Michigan case, though as a practical matter all of the districts would likely have been disrupted if the redrawing went forward.

Decision limits gerrymandering cases going forward

It was a clear victory for parties, such as Republicans in Michigan, that have dominated state legislatures across the U.S. in recent years and, as such, have had the power to draw political boundaries for Congress and other offices.

It dooms any chance, for now, of district lines being redrawn on partisan grounds in Michigan, Ohio and other states where they had been challenged. That said, there could still be challenges in federal courts on other grounds, such as racial fairness.

There are also state courts that can take up redistricting cases. Last year, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ordered the redrawing of congressional districts based on a gerrymandering claim and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to intervene.

Judges had originally wanted Michigan's lines redrawn by Aug. 1

In April, a federal judicial panel threw out Michigan's current boundaries for some three dozen congressional and state legislative seats, accepting arguments from Democrats and the League of Women Voters that they were drawn to favor Republicans.

The three-judge panel ruled that the district lines, which have been in place since 2012, were unconstitutionally gerrymandered and ordered that the state Legislature come up with new lines by Aug. 1 or it would draw its own new lines.

The judges said that as Republican lawmakers and their allies drew up the lines after the 2010 Census, they engaged in "packing" or "cracking" geographic blocs of Democratic voters. By either packing them into one district or so diluting their numbers in others, they reduced those voters' strength to affect government, the court said.

The court found that violated the First Amendment right to association and the 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law.

Republicans in Lansing and Washington immediately asked the U.S. Supreme Court to stay that decision, arguing there wasn't enough time to draw new districts and claiming that the argument "forgoes any semblance of respect for state sovereignty." They also noted that with the Maryland and North Carolina cases still pending, it was premature to order Michigan to begin drawing new districts.

The court granted the stay late last month.

Read more:

Michigan's political boundaries under fire: 14 things to know

U.S. Supreme Court stays decision ordering political redistricting in Michigan

Contact Todd Spangler:tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter@tsspangler. Read more onMichigan politics and sign up for ourelections newsletter.