Here's the opinion. There's a long dissent by Kagan, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, arguing for deference to the decision of the district court. Alito writes a concurring opinion, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch:
"[T]he clear-error standard of review does not apply here because the “‘trial court base[d] its findings upon a mistaken impression of applicable legal principles.’” Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 18 (2024). Because of the correlation between race and partisan preference, litigants can easily use claims of racial gerrymandering for partisan ends. Cooper v. Harris, 581 U. S. 285, 335 (2017) (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). To prevent this, our precedents place the burden on the challengers “to disentangle race and politics.” Alexander, 602 U. S., at 6. Thus, when the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted. Id., at 34; Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234, 258 (2001). Although respondents’ experts could have easily produced such a map if that were possible, they did not, giving rise to a strong inference that the State’s map was indeed based on partisanship, not race. Neither the duration of the District Court’s hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law.
Posts
53 comments:
The Supreme Court does not 'allow' anything. The Supreme Court finds, or doesn't find, on the basis of the existing laws. The entire modern narrative on lawfare has been shaped by the journalists' perception that issues are placed before the Legal Branch as a form of permission-seeking. It is this concept that has given the lower courts the leeway to cause so much mischief. They have become big-headed.
..."failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law..." Yeah. Do something about it already !
No one is deferring to district judge’s “fact finding” on important issues.
The majority treating those judges like Jim Crow juries
At this point I don't need to read Jackson's dissent to know what's in her head.
Pardon me Kagan's. I may read that after all.
From "Supreme Court allows Texas to use redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory" (Scotusblog).
One thing I can see really quickly from this headline: Scotusblog are a bunch of lying scumbags.
The District court just made up their entire decision out of whole cloth in this case.
The dissent in that decision pointed out that the 2 democrat piece of shit judges who made that decision broke every ethical rule a judge can break because they knew they were lying pieces of shit.
"Thus, when the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted."
That's funny!
I detest gerrymandering, but with California grabbing 5 more seats, this decision was needed just to maintain the status quo. (I'm not saying that's why the SC did it, just noting the practical outcome.)
"Supreme Court allows Texas to use redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory"
That's just great. EVERYBODY has "racism" on their bingo cards.
Neither the duration of the District Court’s hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law.
The 2 "Judges" who basically made up a giant load of horseshit in order to ignore the correct legal standards also held their ruling papers back from the dissenting Judge until they issued the ruling so he couldn't accurately dissent from the majority decision.
They did this knowing it would be harder for the dissenting judge to issue his dissent and make it harder for the Supreme court to overturn their decision.
And they knew they were going to get overturned. Everyone knew they would be overturned. The case law is clear.
It is shocking that the 3 liberal shitheads followed them in this.
Milligan was stayed by SCOTUS, despite later winning at SCOTUS, because the District Court handed down its PI 66 days before ballots needed to be mailed.
This lower court handed out its PI 60 days before ballots were to be mailed.
There was never teh slightest chance that an honest SCOTUS would allow a lower court to screw with the map this late in teh game.
The fact that the 3 lefties wanted to ignore all precedent tells you just how corrupt they are.
And the fact that the majority says nothing about Purcell, nothing about "it's too close to ballots going out", and instead says "there's no way we will uphold this crap decision", is a serious kick to the teeth of "judge" Brown.
Serious and well deserved, because the lower court decision is crap
So, Diversity (e g. racism) is divisive. Progress.
mccullough said...
No one is deferring to district judge’s “fact finding” on important issues.
You can't read, can you?
He was overturned because:
1: He got the LAW wrong, and gave the benefit of the doubt to the plaintiffs rather than the State (he said so, in his decision).
Higher courts revue the law de novo (that means they ignore what the lower court said about the law, and apply it as they think it should be applied)
2: Judge Brown admitted the fact that the plaintiffs didn't have a map, and made up excuses for them. SCOTUS said "you can't do that".
As they should
Next time, you should try actually knowing something before you post
Original Mike said...
"Thus, when the asserted reason for a map is political, it is critical for challengers to produce an alternative map that serves the State’s allegedly partisan aim just as well as the map the State adopted."
That's funny!
Can't challenge a map in court because it's a political gerrymander because SCOTUS ruled in 1985 that political gerrymanders are allowed (back when the vast majority were Dem), and follow on SCOTUSes have refused to overturn.
So plaintiffs could try to produce a map that meets the State's claimed criteria, but doesn't do to a preferred District what the State's map does. But if they did that, the State would almost assuredly say "cool, we'll use that one", and the plaintiffs lose, since what they really want is to stop the GOP political gerrymander.
Which they're not allowed to do.
Either that, or the State will point out all the ways the plaintiffs' map doesn't actually mean their legal criteria, and again the plaintiffs lose
Too bad there isn’t a ‘3 strikes and you’re out’ rule for being overturned at the Supreme Court. There might be more integrity at the Appeals Court if they want the lifetime job.
MAGA!
"But if they did that, the State would almost assuredly say "cool, we'll use that one","
Like I said; funny.
Texas Rs are not gerrymandering. They're undoing the gerrymandering done by Ds.
It is shocking that the 3 liberal shitheads followed them in this.
They’re there for different reasons and hoping to one day have a couple more like them join them. They’ll wait…
Wake me for Louisiana v Callais
It’s fair to assume we’ll be governed by their dissents and ruling like them should they one day have the numbers again. Let that be a warning to y’all
Is there ever an end to this insanity?
There needs to be some kind of federal.law, or constitutional amendment to direct the allocation of congressional districts.
The current situation is insane!
Along with @fredsays. I wish district court judges who were overruled 3 or 6 times were fired. If you can’t get your job right, go do something else.
“Joe Bar said...
Is there ever an end to this insanity?“
Any system can be gamed, so just let it be.
Scotus has long held that states have the right to gerrymander. Blue states have done this to a large extent (and will do more in the future). Red states are starting to gerrymander because the RINOs are losing their jobs or fearing the same.
So now it is another constitutional crisis because the wrong people are doing what the right people were doing all along.
Did I miss anything?
The bullet that Donald Trump dodged was as nothing in comparison to the bullets we dodged with the various hoaxes against right-leaning Supreme Court justices.
Jane Mayer, you are an evil human being.
Alito says that racial gerrymandering is OK as long as you do it for partisan reasons. Maybe that’s been the law for 24 years per the 2001 precedent he cites. But I do wonder, if that standard were applied to the original cases for which the law was intended, would any legislative district have had to be redrawn?
I suspect not. And that’s an odd jurisprudence, that the civil rights law never meant what it said.
Greg, fuck off. You don’t know shit. A “finding” of racial discrimination was overturned for “legal reasons.” Bullshit. This is all made up bullshit. The majority of three judge district court panel could have “disentangled” the fact that blacks heavily vote Democrat, a “factual finding” that is now a legal conclusion, and still found “racism.” And that would have been rejected. It’s politics all the way down. There’s no Santa Clause, bro.
Can anyone look at the Congressional Black Caucus and think the Voting Rights Act is a good idea?
There are some embarrassing Republican reps, but the entire CBC is a fucking joke. Inept. Corrupt. Amos N Andy were less insulting to black Americans than the CBC
Basically, these District court judges ignored everything the SCOTUS had previously decided, and tried to help the Democrats by screwing up the R's redistricting on the eve of the primaries.
It was arrogant and crooked. The SCOTUS should have slapped them down harder. The SCOTUS makes rulings and in effect tells the lower courts, these are the guidelines. These district court judges deliberately ignored it. They aren't "Stupid". They aren't "confused". They did it deliberately.
I loved this zinger by the Conservative justices at the end of their opinion:
"Neither the duration of the District Court’s hearing nor the length of its majority opinion provides an excuse for failing to apply the correct legal standards as set out clearly in our case law."
In other words, 100 pages of bullshit is still bullshit.
The SCOTUS has ruled its OK to gerrymander for partisan advantage. Dont like it? Go talk to your representatives in Congress or the State legislature.
As the Justices write in their brief opinion, the plantiffs were obligated to provide a "corrected map" that would be racially non-discriminatory while increasing R votes. The whole basis of the lawsuit was these mean white Legislators hated blacks and browns and wanted to reduce their representation. Their "excuse" of increasing the number of R's was just a smokescreen.
Can you imagine how fucking leftwing insane this country would be if we had 5 Democrat SCOTUS judges? Imagine if Kagan was Chief Justice and we had 2 more "wise latinas" or Jackson's on the court!
Trump would be in jail right now.
BTW, Boasberg has just told Congress to fuck off. He's a Judge dammit, and he doesn't have to answer questions from Senators. Except, of course, he does. Thats why the Constitution allows impeachment. And congress has the power to establish the appeallete courts and their jurisidiction.
Whether the R senators, who secretly like Boasberg or don't care, will do anything about it is unclear. No doubt Grassley will write a very strong letter. And if that doesn't work, he will write another one.
As I wrote in a comment a couple of weeks ago, there is no way to take partisan district drawing out of the equation. At the end of the day someone has to choose the rule that is used to draw the boundaries and no amount of "non-partisan" line drawing is going to work- it like trying to find a virgin in a brothel. In my opinion, the only real power any court should have in this matter is to ensure the districts are of the same population according to the Census data and even that isn't going to be an unadulterated affair since even the Census data seems to have become partisan.
The rule is that the court doesn't decide politics except under the pretext of race, which is going obsolete.
“Texas Rs are not gerrymandering. They're undoing the gerrymandering done by “
Partially, the problem arose from one of the first things that the Biden Administration did when they got into office - which was to switch how Congressional (re)apportionment was done. At least from when I worked for the Decennial Census, some 50 years ago, only citizens were counted. There was a question on the Census forms about citizenship, and people were not counted if they didn’t mark “yes” on the form. That was still the case on 1/21/20, but within the next month, in one of its first acts in office, this was removed and reversed. The result was that the Dems picked up 5-10 seats in Congress over what they would have had otherwise, from growing states like FL and TX in favor of stagnant states like NY, NY, and CA.
I remember this being a long running dispute, because even back then, Dem Congressional leaders, like Denver’s Patsy Schroeder, were pushing sampling to augment counts, even though the Constitution says “count” (enumerate). It never went anywhere, until the age of Dem LawFare where two centuries of counting was wiped out at the strokes of a pen (or AutoPen). What must be remembered here is that by allowing sampling to adjust the apportionment counts gave some power on reapportionment to the Deep State, who tend to side with Democrats. And from that, maybe what the 2nd Trump Administration should have done was to reverse course, and order that the apportionment be redone the old way forcing redistricting in maybe (just a guess) 1/3 of the states.
Of course, mid decade redistricting is LawFare, as are the Dems’ argument (without actual proof) that the motive for redistricting was racist.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Alito says that racial gerrymandering is OK as long as you do it for partisan reasons
Yeah, we get it. Redistricting that favors Democrats is a-ok, if it favors Republicans it gets thrown out. Gotta keep them slaves on the Democrat plantation.
As Greg pointed out above, if the opposition is based on the political alignment with race as window dressing then the opponents are on the horns of a dilemma. They can either take the partisan map as drawn or they draw another map that protects their favored district and still shows the same political lean but they are going to lose either way. That's because the law was always contradictory in allowing racial discrimination for the purposes of remedying .... racial discrimination.
This is consistent with the old saying “To the victor go the spoils.” Whichever party wins a state has the right to create maps favoring their side. It also signals IMO that the era of VRA “minority majority districts” is good and well over if the “hands off” portion of the opinion is accurate.
I do think states like California that have constitutional protections shouldn’t be able to “waive” the rule just because as Newsom is currently doing. We’ll see what comes of the OCR injunction and investigation ongoing by AAG Dillon.
mccullough said...
There are some embarrassing Republican reps, but the entire CBC is a fucking joke. Inept. Corrupt. Amos N Andy were less insulting to black Americans than the CBC
Amos 'n Andy was entertaining. The CBC not so much.
Mike (MJB Wolf) said, "This is consistent with the old saying “To the victor go the spoils.”
Indeed. As much as I detested what Newsom and his Dem cronies did in California with Prop 50 last month, it only reverted the situation to the status quo that would have prevailed had we not passed the "nonpartisan commission" system in the first place. Before that happened, the legislature drew the lines. The California legislature has a veto-proof Dem majority, so their nice new lines are simply those that they would have put in place in 2011 if they'd had the power.
The only solution is for Republicans to start beating Dems in legislative races again.
Go Away !
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Alito says that racial gerrymandering is OK as long as you do it for partisan reasons. Maybe that’s been the law for 24 years per the 2001 precedent he cites. But I do wonder, if that standard were applied to the original cases for which the law was intended, would any legislative district have had to be redrawn?
I suspect not. And that’s an odd jurisprudence, that the civil rights law never meant what it said.
Everyone knows that racist gerrymandering is the settled law. That is quite literally what the 1965 Civil Rights Act forces states to do.
Democrats have used this to Gerrymander states for decades. What Democrats are objecting to is Republicans doing what they have been doing the whole time.
The real political earthquake that is on the horizon is when the Supreme Court strikes down he racial districts legislation that Democrats have used to shut Republicans out of representation in States like Massachusetts and Illinois.
You are just a really stupid person who doesn't know anything about the subject you are talking about.
From the Kagan dissent--referring to the Trump DOJ letter critical of the prior Democrat gerrymandered districts:
Each was described as a “coalition district”—meaning
a district in which two or more minority groups (say, Blacks
and Hispanics) can together form a majority and elect a candidate of their choice. (In racially diverse places like Texas,
such districts are not uncommon.) The letter stated—quite
incorrectly (no one now tries to defend the proposition)—
that the creation of those districts was unlawful: “It is well established that so-called ‘coalition districts’ run afoul [of]
the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment.”
Id., at 18.
This is disingenuous in the extreme. Do blacks and hispanics just happen to "together form a majority and elect a candidate of their choice?" Hell, no--they only do that because a partisan gerrymander lumped them into a district by race/voting history (take your pick).
The dissent also argues that the Republican's compliance with the requirements of the Civil Rights Act to draw "Majority/Minority" districts provided for only minimal majorities (50.3%, etc.) is somehow improper. Damned if you do and damned if you don't. It's a one-way ratchet.
In the view of the dissent, the only way to comply is to let the Democrats draw the districts. By race.
The whole basis of the lawsuit was these mean white Legislators hated blacks and browns and wanted to reduce their representation.
Actually, the Texas legislature redrew three of the districts to make them Hispanic-majority. The libs want to prevent this because Hispanics are voting Republican now. It is the libs who want to reduce Hispanic representation.
Well Marty CA is a one-party state for many reasons and that is one of the reasons it drove me to FL after a lifetime in SoCal. Once they created industrial scale ballot harvesting it was only a matter of time before ALL R districts flipped. It's how they work. But surprisingly there is never a judge ready to help the people stop their abuse, not like the judges who second guess every Republican move.
The dissent in simple English;
The trial court misapplied the law by failing to disentangle race and politics. Partly true.
Because of this legal error, the appellate court should not defer to its findings. True
Race often correlates with party, so challengers must clearly prove racial intent and show an alternative map. Mostly true.
The challengers failed to produce an alternative map, implying the state’s map was motivated by partisanship, not race. True.
The dissent criticizes the lower court for not applying the law correctly, no matter how long the hearing or opinion was. True.
I suppose there is a SC flex against gerrymandering, but I would think it would have to be an all or nothing proposition. It's either constitutional or it's not. If not all of them would have to be reversed before the'28 election.
Left Bank of the Charles said...
Alito says that racial gerrymandering is OK as long as you do it for partisan reasons.
I would ask if you're always this dishonest, but I already know that you are.
Alito pointed out that it's solid SCOTUS precedent that if you want to claim racial discrimination in districting, in a place where skin color and political party are highly correlated, then you have to prove it's racial, not just political.
But I do wonder, if that standard were applied to the original cases for which the law was intended, would any legislative district have had to be redrawn?
Yes, they would have. Because when the law was passed, skin color and political Party were NOT correlated.
White Democrats gerrymandered so that black Democrats could not elect black Democrats. That was a civil rights violation, and the law was correctly written to stop it.
Republicans gerrymandering so that Democrats can not elect any Democrats is perfectly valid, just as Democrats gerrymandering so that Republicans can not elect any Republicans is perfectly legal (see MA, for example, where in the last 25 years they've had GOP governors & a GOP Senator, but not even one GOP House Rep, not even once).
Black Democrats are not entitled to ANY more rights than are white Republicans. So until IL and MA are prevented from gerrymandering against Republicans, Democrats can just STFU when we do it to them, no matter what their skin color is
No, Ronald, that was all what the majority said.
Post a Comment
Please use the comments forum to respond to the post. Don't fight with each other. Be substantive... or interesting... or funny. Comments should go up immediately... unless you're commenting on a post older than 2 days. Then you have to wait for us to moderate you through. It's also possible to get shunted into spam by the machine. We try to keep an eye on that and release the miscaught good stuff. We do delete some comments, but not for viewpoint... for bad faith.