Where does the authority to review congressional districts come from?

Good question.

She didn't answer, but asked another question whose relevance was neither immediately obvious nor explained by Jeffrey Toobin in his piece.

Ginsburg Slaps Gorsuch in Gerrymandering Case

For many, it seems, recourse to what the constitution says is not the issue, or not the only issue, anyway.

And that seems to include some of the Supremes, on both sides of the question, talking airily about what democracy does or does not require of them, and how a decision either way might affect the public's opinion of the court, of the constitution, or of our democracy.

The Supreme Court looks poised to strike down gerrymandering. Here's why.

But not everything being considered is so detached from the actual document.

Scott Lemieux writes,

That there might be more difficult cases in the future does not justify the Court abdicating its responsibility to enforce the Constitution. 

And the mass disenfranchisement of voters violates the 1st Amendment's right to association and the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.

Sure, the reference to mass disenfranchisement is mere hyperbole, but still.

Though he does not explain, it is apparent from the piece that at least some of the Supremes think, and have thought before, that both the First and Fourteenth involve rights of collections of voters such as Democrats and Republicans, and so both might be bases, alone or together, for condemning some schemes of districting.

That is probably not an argument to move the hearts of originalists or strict constructionists, and certainly not to move unscrupulous partisans of the party whose ox is not getting gored in any particular case, but not everybody on the court right now, considering this case, is any of those things.

I wonder if anyone has considered the idea that the constitution doesn't require that house members be elected by one-on-one competition in geographically defined districts, at all.

They could be elected in statewide one-on-one competition, like senators.

(What would that look like in California with its 55 house members, or Texas with 38?)

Or perhaps they could run on party lists in a scheme of statewide proportional representation.

Either way would solve the problem of gerrymandering.

Update.

If they're going to rule on gerrymandering of federal congressional districts, will they (can they) rule as well on districts for the state legislatures?

Those are rigged, too.

How do you think we end up with a red legislature in a state with mostly blue voters?

A red legislature that then gerrymanders both federal and state districts.