The Supreme Court reinstated a Texas gerrymander that is expected to give Republicans five additional seats in the US House on Thursday evening, after a lower federal court struck that gerrymander down. As is often the case in politically contentious cases, the justices appear to have voted entirely along party lines, with only the Court’s three Democrats dissenting.

The Court’s decision in Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) is a victory for the Republican Party. And it is likely to have brutal implications for all future federal lawsuits challenging gerrymandered maps. Though the Court’s order in LULAC is brief, it imposes such heavy burdens on gerrymandering plaintiffs that few, if any, such plaintiffs will be able to succeed in future cases.

Indeed, LULAC is so hostile to anti-gerrymandering suits that many civil rights lawyers and plaintiffs may simply decide not to bother challenging illegal maps, because their chances of prevailing in court will be so hopeless.

The Supreme Court had already made it exceedingly difficult to challenge gerrymandered maps

To understand LULAC, it’s helpful to also understand a distinction between two different types of gerrymanders. Often, state legislatures draw maps that favor whichever party controls that legislature. These maps are known as “partisan” gerrymanders. Other times, states may draw their maps to change the racial makeup of various legislative districts, often to give an advantage to white voters. These maps are known as “racial” gerrymanders.

As a practical matter, the line between racial and partisan gerrymanders is often thin. Black Americans, for example, tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats. So a map that seeks to maximize Republican power will often closely resemble a map that........

© Vox