What happened
The Supreme Court voted 6-3 Thursday to keep in place a South Carolina congressional map that a lower court had ruled an impermissible racial gerrymander. Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the court's conservatives, said the challengers had failed to prove the state's Republican legislature had removed a swath of Black voters from the Charleston-area swing district due to race instead of allowable "partisan preferences."
Who said what
"The challengers introduced more than enough evidence of racial gerrymandering," Justice Elena Kagan wrote in a blunt dissent for the court's three liberals. Alito's majority opinion betrays a "lack of familiarity with the events and evidence central to this case," she said, and creates "special rules to specifically disadvantage suits to remedy race based-redistricting."
The court's conservative majority "effectively substituted their judgment about what actually happened for that of the district court," said University of Texas law professor Steve Vladeck to CNN. The Supreme Court is only supposed to do that when "lower court findings are clearly erroneous," Rick Hasen said at Election Law Blog. The "bottom line practical" impact of the ruling is that Alito has "once again come up with a legal framework that makes it easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to help white Republicans maximize their political power."
What next?
Alito's opinion "did not entirely foreclose the possibility that civil rights groups might eventually prevail" using a different legal theory, Politico said. But "the chances of any changes in the map this year seem vanishingly remote."
The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.
Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
-
Trump ordered to fully fund SNAPSpeed Read The Justice Department is appealing the decision
-
Judge issues injunction on DHS use of forceSpeed Read Agents can only use force under the ‘immediate threat of physical harm’
-
France targets Shein over weapons, sex dollsSpeed Read Shein was given 48 hours to scrub the items from their website
-
Trump tariffs face stiff scrutiny at Supreme CourtSpeed Read Even some of the Court’s conservative justices appeared skeptical
-
FAA to cut air travel as record shutdown rolls onSpeed Read Up to 40 airports will be affected
-
Democrats sweep top races in off-year electionSpeed Read A trio of nationally watched races went to the party
-
Trump to partly fund SNAP as shutdown talks progressSpeed Read The administration has said it will cover about 50% of benefits
-
Nick Fuentes’ Groyper antisemitism is splitting the rightTalking Points Interview with Tucker Carlson draws conservative backlash
