Redistricting changes put forward by the Wisconsin Republicans have seen trouble in court. Ballot Access News had the following recent post explaining the latest news:

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider whether to grant a stay in Gill v Whitford, 16-1161, at its Thursday, June 8 conference. This is the case in which the lower 3-judge U.S. District Court determined that the Wisconsin legislative district boundaries constitute an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.

The U.S. Supreme Court wants the opponents of the gerrymander to file a brief on June 7, and then the Court will decide whether the state must now implement a new districting plan, or whether the state can delay that until the U.S. Supreme Court decides whether the lower court was correct.

Also, the Brennan Center has a run down on the case. Here is an excerpt from their work:

A three-judge federal panel has ordered the Wisconsin Legislature to redraw the state assembly map that the court struck down as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander by November 1, 2017.

Last November, the panel declared that the state house plan adopted by Wisconsin’s Republican-controlled legislature in 2011 was an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander that violated both the Equal Protection Clause and the plaintiffs’ First Amendment freedom of association. The ruling was the first time in over three decades that a federal court invalidated a redistricting plan for partisan bias.

After evaluating the constitutionality of the map with a three-part test, the panel concluded that the map displayed both bad intent and bad effect, citing evidence that the map drawers used special partisan measurements to ensure that the map maximized Republican advantages in assembly seats. Despite Democrats winning a majority of the statewide Assembly vote in 2012 and 2014, Republicans won sixty of the ninety-nine Assembly seats. Wisconsin Republicans dispute the assertion that they intentionally engineered a biased map, arguing that partisan skews in the map reflect a natural geographic advantage they have in redistricting as a result of Democrats clustering in cities while Republicans are spread out more evenly throughout the state. The court, however, said the state’s natural political geography “does not explain adequately the sizeable disparate effect” seen in the previous two election cycles.

The panel, however, denied one of the plaintiffs’ principal requests: to have judges, not lawmakers and the governor, in charge of redrawing the legislative boundaries, stating in its opinion, “it is neither necessary nor appropriate for us to embroil the Court in the Wisconsin Legislature’s deliberations.” The court advised the panel to use the November ruling as a guide in developing a new redistricting plan.