In a landmark decision on Thursday, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority upheld South Carolina’s congressional map, maintaining a Republican-held district and rejecting a lower court ruling that found the district discriminated against Black voters. The 6-3 decision relates to the national debate over racial gerrymandering and its implications for electoral politics.
The case centered on South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District, represented by Republican Representative Nancy Mace. During redistricting, the state legislature moved 30,000 Democratic-leaning Black residents of Charleston out of the district, a move critics argued diluted Black voting power. The state contended that the changes were driven by partisan politics and population growth, not racial motivations.
Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, criticized the lower court for its “misguided approach” and for not presuming that lawmakers acted in good faith. Alito noted that the plaintiffs did not provide an alternative map, which he interpreted as an implicit concession that the current map was as fair as any other. “The District Court’s conclusions are clearly erroneous because it did not follow this basic logic,” Alito wrote.
Liberal justices, however, dissented strongly. Justice Elena Kagan, representing the three liberal justices, argued that the majority ignored substantial evidence from the lower court indicating that the district had been gerrymandered based on race. Kagan accused the court of adopting “special rules to specially disadvantage suits to remedy race-based redistricting.”
The Associated Press writes that the decision could have far-reaching consequences, potentially paving the way for other Republican-controlled states to implement similar redistricting strategies without fear of federal judicial intervention. Richard Hasen, an election expert at UCLA, echoed Kagan’s concerns, stating that the decision “makes it easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to help white Republicans maximize their political power.”
Janai Nelson, president and director-counsel of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, criticized the ruling, stating, “The highest court in our land greenlit racial discrimination in South Carolina’s redistricting process, denied Black voters the right to be free from the race-based sorting, and sent a message that facts, process, and precedent will not protect the Black vote.”
Despite these criticisms, supporters of the ruling, including South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander, praised the decision. “Our plan was meticulously crafted to comply with statutory and constitutional requirements, and I was completely confident we would prevail,” Alexander said.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes at a crucial time, as both abortion rights advocates and abortion opponents await a final decision from the U.S. Supreme Court on an effort to restrict access to mifepristone, an abortion-inducing drug. The court’s willingness to engage with such contentious issues highlights the increasingly pivotal role it plays in shaping U.S. policy.
Justice Clarence Thomas, who was part of the conservative majority, argued in a separate opinion that federal courts should refrain from involving themselves in redistricting disputes altogether, suggesting these issues should be left to political branches. “It is well past time for the Court to return these political issues where they belong—the political branches,” Thomas wrote, though no other justice joined his opinion.
The Supreme Court’s ruling differed from a recent case in Alabama, where the court found that Republican lawmakers had diluted Black voters’ political power under the Voting Rights Act by creating just one majority-Black district. That decision led to new maps in Alabama and Louisiana, providing a second district where Black voters had significant influence.
In contrast, the South Carolina case did not result in a similar outcome. Although Black voters would not have formed a majority in a redrawn district, their presence combined with Democratic-leaning white voters could have made the district competitive for Democrats.