Paul Smith, former head of Jenner & Block's U.S. Supreme Court and appellate practice, recently stepped away from big firm life and into a constitutional case that could change political maps throughout America.

Smith of the Campaign Legal Center is counsel of record for the challengers in a partisan gerrymandering case, Gill v. Whitford, that the high court agreed on Monday to review next term. Partisan gerrymandering is the drawing of election district lines in a way that discriminates against a political party.

A divided, three-judge district court ruled last year that the Wisconsin Republican-led Legislature's 2011 plan for legislative seats was unconstitutional because it burdened the representational rights of Democratic voters.

Although Smith and the center had urged the justices to affirm the district court decision, they acknowledged “that the importance of the issue may warrant full briefing and argument.”

Smith said in a statement Monday: “Partisan gerrymandering of this kind is worse now than at any time in recent memory. The Supreme Court has the opportunity to ensure the maps in Wisconsin are drawn fairly, and further, has the opportunity to create ground rules that safeguard every citizen's right to freely choose their representatives.”

What's at stake in 'Gill v. Whitford'?

A lot. Even though the challenge was to a Wisconsin redistricting plan, whatever the justices say about partisan gerrymanders will have a ripple effect throughout the nation—particularly if they adopt a test or standards for measuring when those gerrymanders violate the Constitution.

Redistricting maps are drawn after each census and endure for the ensuing decade. If the justices impose limits on partisan gerrymanders, which some observers said proliferate around the country, it will affect how congressional, state and local districts are drawn after the 2020 census.

When did the Supreme Court last take a partisan gerrymandering case?

Thirteen years ago in Vieth v. Jubelirer. The justices split sharply in this challenge to the Republican-controlled, Pennsylvania General Assembly's redrawing of congressional district lines. The late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the plurality opinion that upheld the state plan. He was joined by Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor and Clarence Thomas. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote an opinion concurring in the judgment. In dissent were Justices John Paul Stevens, David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

The four justices in the plurality held that partisan gerrymander claims are not justiciable because there are “no judicially discernible and manageable standards for adjudicating” those claims. Kennedy, however, held open the possibility of judicial relief “if some limited and precise rationale were found to correct an established violation of the Constitution.”