<P> Court observers identified that the Justices were split from the oral session . The four Justices that were considered liberal appeared to side with the original plaintiffs in arguing that the redistricting plan was biased, with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg proposing that if they did not intervene here, Republicans would likely be able to stack other states in a similar manner, and it would de-incentive voters not favored by such redistricting plans to vote . Four of the conservative Justices felt the Court should not intervene, with Chief Justice John Roberts fearing that if they get involved, it would open up for more redistricting challenges that the Supreme Court would need to take up, and could harm the Court's credibility . The conservative Justices also questioned if the defendants had legal standing to bring the case forward in the first place . </P> <P> The decision is expected to hinge on Justice Kennedy, who had held a middle ground in Vieth and wrote in his opinion about the need to find a "manageable standard" to determine if a partisan gerrymandering had occurred . Commentators observed that the stay of the District Court order was split 5 - 4, with Kennedy supporting the majority . During the oral arguments, Kennedy had appeared to side with the conservatives on asking about the legitimacy of the original plaintiffs in bringing the case, but asked both sides difficult questions relating to the redistricting approaches, leaving it difficult for observers to tell which way he would decide . However, some writers expect he will side with the lower court and not for the appellants . </P> <P> A decision in the case is expected by June 2018 . Subsequent to the oral arguments, the Court had agreed to hear one other partisan redistricting case in the same term: Benisek v. Lamone, accepted in December 2017 and heard by the Court in March 2018, which is based on Democratic - favored redistricting of Maryland's 6th congressional district . </P>

When will the wisconsin gerrymandering case be decided