At issue for the high court was whether partisan gerrymandering can be so extreme as to be unconstitutional and whether to spell out rules limiting the practice.
The Supreme Court last addressed the issue in 1986, when it held in a splintered ruling that political gerrymandering could be unconstitutional, but provided few rules on how to review such cases.
In the Pennsylvania case, the lower court overturned the 1986 precedent and said federal courts have no jurisdiction to review political gerrymandering disputes. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling, allowing Pennsylvania's new redistricting map to stand.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040428/ts_nm/court_redistricting_dc_5Apparently, the four most conservative members also wanted to overturn the 1986 ruling and take the Federal courts out of gerrymandering decisions. They were barely beaten back.
On a side note... that was our last shot before the elections, right? Is there anything else in the pipeline?