WASHINGTON — In a 5-4 ruling Thursday, the U.S. Supreme Court declared federal courts shouldn’t be deciding any congressional redistricting cases, meaning Ohio will keep its current districts until 2022.

The five justices held that partisan gerrymandering in North Carolina and Maryland presented political questions outside of the reach of federal courts.

While Chief Justice John Roberts noted that "excessive partisanship in districting leads to results that reasonably seem unjust," he added that doesn't mean "the solution lies with the federal judiciary. We conclude that partisan gerrymandering claims present political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts."

In a majority decision where he was joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, Roberts wrote that those asking the court to weigh in on partisan gerrymandering sought “an unprecedented expansion of judicial power.” He suggested that states and Congress can pass laws to deal with partisan gerrymandering — as Ohio did in a ballot initiative in 2018.

The decision sends both the Maryland and North Carolina cases back to the lower courts with instructions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

In her dissent, Justice Elana Kagan said, "For the first time ever, this court refuses to remedy a constitutional violation because it thinks the task beyond judicial capabilities."

She added: "The partisan gerrymanders here debased and dishonored our democracy, turning upside-down the core American idea that all governmental power derives from the people."

Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost praised the ruling: "Ohio voters already elected to redesign our line-drawing process by a constitutional amendment. Power to legislate belongs to the legislature, or to the people — not to the courts. Today's decision is in line with these principles."

Ohio Secretary of State Frank LaRose applauded the high court's affirmation of federalism and the separation of powers, saying, "It's up to the people of Ohio to determine how congressional lines are drawn, not a handful of unelected judges, and that's exactly what Ohio did last year when they overwhelmingly approved our redistricting reform initiative. Thanks to that effort, soon Republicans and Democrats will begin working for the first time as true partners in the effort to fairly draw congressional districts."

But Freda Levenson, legal director for one of those that brought the lawsuit, ACLU Ohio, said: “The court’s decision to allow the practice of gerrymandering to continue, to flourish, and to evade review by the judicial system, leaves it in the hands of those who will continue to abuse their awesome power whenever they can to defeat the will of the voters. In Ohio, this means that in the 2020 election, the map, rather than the electorate, will once again determine who occupies each of our congressional seats."

Ohio Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown condemned the ruling: “The Supreme Court failed Ohioans today. Voters should be picking their representatives, not politicians picking their voters. This Supreme Court has repeatedly put its thumb on the scale of justice for corporations over workers, Wall Street over consumers, drug companies over patients and today politics over voters.”

U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur, D-Toledo, the longest-serving member of Ohio's congressional delegation, said, “By ruling that federal courts do not have a role in deciding partisan gerrymandering claims, the Supreme Court has opened the flood gates for extreme, partisan gerrymandering to go on completely unchecked in the United States."

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Urbana, meanwhile, called the decision "a win for the American people."

"We want elected representatives who are accountable to the people making decisions on district lines, not unelected bureaucrats," he tweeted.

Ohio House Speaker Larry Householder, R-Glenford, said, “I appreciate the court confirming that Ohio’s congressional map is valid and constitutional. The court confirmed, as we have said all along, this is not a question for the court but a political question that is properly left to the states.”

Senate President Larry Obhof, R-Medina, was not surprised, saying, "The holding was clear that so-called partisan gerrymandering is not a justiciable issue and cannot be the basis for judicial interference in the political process."

State Rep. Stephanie Howse, D-Cleveland, president of the Ohio Legislative Black Caucus, said, “The Supreme Court has failed the people with this ruling in setting a precedent that allows our democracy to be corrupted and hinders the people’s right to have fair elections.”

"The court’s disappointing decision today was centered on a legal debate," said Ohio Democratic Chairman David Pepper. "But it doesn’t alter the factual finding of the U.S. Southern District of Ohio: that Republicans have cynically and secretly rigged Ohio elections for a decade.

“It also doesn’t change the fact that an overwhelming majority of Ohio voters have twice made clear that they’ve had it with rigged elections, and therefore voted to change Ohio’s Constitution to assure fair districts."

Though the ruling dealt specifically with gerrymanders in Maryland and North Carolina, it also means Ohioans will have to wait until 2022 for new congressional maps under a redistricting process approved by voters in 2018. A different outcome of the case could’ve meant that the current districts — which give Republicans a 12-4 advantage over Democrats — would’ve been tossed out before the 2020 elections.

The Supreme Court earlier declined to take up a decision by a three-judge panel in the U.S. District court in Cincinnati that unanimously found that the current congressional map is unconstitutionally gerrymandered. The panel under that decision ordered the Republican-controlled General Assembly to submit a new map by June 14 so it can be implemented for 2020. The high court decided not to take up the Ohio case because they were already considering the Maryland and North Carolina cases.

Republicans have held 12 of Ohio's 16 congressional districts since the last redistricting process after the 2010 census. A March Associated Press analysis found that Ohio's gerrymandered House districts allowed Republicans to win seven more seats than they otherwise should have judging by vote totals. Republicans got 52 percent of the vote but won 75 percent of the seats last year.

Ohio GOP officials had argued that complying with the district court’s ruling meant that Ohioans would grapple with three different sets of districts in three consecutive congressional elections, with Republican Yost saying the District Court’s opinion “is a fundamentally political act that has no basis whatsoever in the Constitution.”

Catherine Turcer, a redistricting reform advocate and executive director of Common Cause Ohio, said the ruling means that the “real battle is on the ground” in states. For states that don’t have citizen initiatives on redistricting, it will be “incredibly difficult” to effect change.

“It’s astonishing that the Supreme Court majority would say, ‘oh well, we just don’t have a role here,’” she said, calling the ruling “a bitter disappointment for redistricting reform advocates all over the country.”

She said she was frustrated that Ohio voters will have to wait until 2022 for fair districts.

“Voters shouldn’t have to wait to participate in real elections,” she said. “They shouldn’t have to deal with rigged districts that manipulate their votes.”

The Supreme Court cases decided on Thursday were Rucho v. Common Cause and Lamone v. Benisek.

jwehrman@dispatch.com

@JessicaWehrman