wantic to put this question on the form is a pretext. we give you another chance to try to say what the decision was for putting the question on the census form. i have to say, okay, so then what? i don t know the answer to that. suppose the census bureau says, here s another reason. then what? is there more litigation? the decision does not answer that question. i suspect that was a compromise in order ton the chief justice s vote. the liberal in dissents should be say this is it, the whistle has been blown, the flag is down, no sending it back to the census bureau for a rewrite, but perhaps that was the way to get justice roberts on this opinion. the practice effect of that, i don t know. the decision doesn t say. considering the deadline that the trump administration is up against, and ambassador locke, maybe you would know more, is it
you re using i think i ve been doing policy clarity for a long, long time now. that s really what i do. ali, i ask you to hold up. we do have breaking news in from the supreme court. i want to head back to washington and bring in our justice correspondent pete williams. i understand we have a decision on one of the gerrymandering he cases, one of the cry cases much the term. reporter: 5-4 vote along the traditional ideological lines. the supreme court has said it cannot decide the question of political jerry mandering, partisan political jerry mandering. this is in the north carolina case. basically the securicourt says impossible to know where to draw the line, because state legislatures, invariably, whoever is in control of the majority party, is responsible to drawing the political
umber engineers rear districts. so the interesting thing here is the chief justice, john roberts, joins the courts for liberals in this decision. so it is a 5-4 ruling, but it s not along the usual partisan lines so this question at there point, the government does not have authority to put this question on the census form. now, i have to say one other thing. there s still litigation pending in maryland, but that seems to be going against the government, too. the trump administration may well try to take another run at this, but i think with this decision that s pretty well foreclosed. this is a defeat for the trump administration even though what was eventually ruled so is a
of the business of having any role of putting limits through the constitution on part an jerry mandering. correct me if i m wrong here, rick, so in essence the question is when it s too much, the court is saying that s not up to us to decide. that s essential correct. the court has said we re not prepared to saul all partisan jerry mandering is all constitutional. that would be a clear rule. instead the court has said the question is how much is too much? on that question, the court says we haven t been persuaded there s a principled clear, judicial rule for draws that line. obviously four justices dissent and don t agree that the courts cannot come up with clear rules here, but this is a very momentous decision, lower courts have been striking down partisan jerry majerrgerrymanderers, and
question on citizenship. let me go to. at oral arguments it seemed the conserve tiff justices were amenable to the administration s proffered motivations for pete williams, the case sorry to interrupt you, melissa. pete, what do we know? reporter: it s somewhat untidy. the supreme court is saying that it agrees with the lower court skis in part that said the government could not put this question on the form, but it also reverses in part and remands the case for further proceedings. it s going to take us a i think i think this means that the question cannot be added to the census form. the supreme court here is saying that the government s explanation for why it put the question on the census form was