The Supreme Court expressed skepticism on Wednesday regarding a lower court’s decision that deemed a South Carolina congressional district an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After more than two hours of oral arguments, the majority of the justices appeared to lean towards siding with the state in a case that revolves around the intricate relationship between race and political-party affiliation, as well as the challenges faced by courts and litigants in distinguishing between the two.
South Carolina introduced the disputed map in 2021, which relocated nearly two-thirds of Black voters in Charleston County from District 1, currently represented by Republican Nancy Mace, to District 6, represented by Democrat Jim Clyburn. The map also shifted Republican areas from nearby Beaufort, Berkeley, and Dorchester Counties into District 1 from District 6. The state defended the plan against accusations of racial gerrymandering, arguing that the Republican-controlled legislature’s aim was to maintain a safe seat for Republicans, who currently hold a 6-1 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation.
In January 2023, a three-judge federal district court, which reviews challenges to the constitutionality of congressional maps, ruled that District 1 was unconstitutional due to racial gerrymandering. The court ordered the state to redraw the map, a directive that is currently on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision.
Representing South Carolina, lawyer John Gore argued that the case before the Supreme Court was based on weak circumstantial evidence. He claimed that the three-judge district court had overlooked the state’s direct evidence that it relied on party, not race, particularly data from the 2020 presidential election, to draw District 1. Gore further argued that the lower court’s decision was based on unreliable and unprobative opinions from the challengers’ experts and that the challengers failed to present an alternative map demonstrating how lawmakers could have achieved a safer Republican seat while adhering to traditional redistricting principles.
Justice Elena Kagan countered Gore’s assertion that challengers were obliged to provide an alternative map. However, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed to align with Gore’s stance. He expressed doubt about the challengers’ ability to disentangle race and politics in such cases without direct evidence, an alternative map, odd-shaped districts, or a disregard for political data in favor of racial data. Roberts also highlighted the challengers’ argument that Republican lawmakers made significant efforts to move Black voters in and out of District 1, yet the net increase in Republican voters in District 1 was minimal, amounting to just 1.
The Supreme Court recently deliberated on a redistricting case, where Justice Roberts acknowledged the possibility of a ruling for the challengers but noted it would mark a significant departure from established court practices.
Justice Neil Gorsuch showed openness to the challengers’ arguments, suggesting that an alternative map could have served as strong evidence of lawmakers’ dishonesty regarding their intentions.
Justice Samuel Alito questioned the three-judge court’s conclusions, pointing out the mapmaker’s extensive experience and the flaws in the challengers’ expert reports, particularly one that generated 10,000 maps without considering politics. Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed to consider the state’s reliance on 2020 presidential election data, despite the challengers’ claims of its unreliability. Aden, representing the challengers, urged the court to uphold the lower court’s ruling, emphasizing that race, not partisanship, was the predominant factor in the design of District 1, based on factual findings and expert testimony. The liberal justices, along with Aden, argued that the Supreme Court’s role was not to agree or disagree with the lower court’s decision but to assess whether it was clearly erroneous. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized the deferential nature of the clear error standard, stating that the Supreme Court could not reverse the lower court’s decision simply because it might have reached a different conclusion. Justice Sonia Sotomayor echoed this sentiment, arguing that the court should defer to the district court’s credibility assessment of experts under the clear error standard.The Supreme Court Justices engaged in a debate over the clear error standard in the context of racial gerrymandering. Justice Alito acknowledged the high demands of the clear error standard but emphasized that it is not a rubber stamp, especially in cases where the justices are the sole reviewers of a three-judge district court’s findings, which are based on expert reports.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett concurred that the justices should generally defer to the district courts’ findings under the clear error standard.
Justice Clarence Thomas inquired about the justices’ approach to the challengers’ second claim—that lawmakers intended to discriminate against Black voters—if they determine that District 1 was not a racial gerrymander. Flynn advocated for sending the claim back to the lower court for reevaluation, arguing that the district court applied incorrect legal standards. Thomas’s question seemed to be a positive sign for the state.
Regardless of the court’s decision, it is anticipated that the court will act swiftly to allow the state ample time to prepare for the 2024 elections.
Posted in Merits Cases, What’s Happening Now
Cases: Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
Recommended Citation: Eric, ‘Justices question finding that S.C. district was unconstitutional racial gerrymander’, SCOTUSblog (Oct. 11, 2023, 12:00 AM),
