The US Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Wednesday in a case involving racial gerrymandering claims against South Carolina’s congressional map. The case is an appeal from a three-judge panel decision in the US District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division, which found that South Carolina’s Republican-led legislature’s design of the state’s First Congressional District was an unconstitutional gerrymander, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause due to the use of race as the predominant factor in drawing the district lines.
John Gore, arguing on behalf of South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander, the defendant in the case, contends that the trial court committed an error in ruling the congressional map to be an unconstitutional gerrymander. He suggested that increased Republican votes, rather than racial gerrymandering, were the intent of the legislature’s map creation, and emphasized the political data used to shape the district.
The Supreme Court’s standard of review in a case like this was underlined as being “clear error” by Justices Clarence Thomas, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan. This standard generally dictates that a lower court’s findings will only be overturned if supported by substantial, credible evidence in the record. This point of contention was raised by Justice Kagan, who noted that credibility and factual findings of the lower court should be given deference according to this standard.
Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that, despite the supposed deference to a trial court decision under the “clear error” rule, it isn’t necessarily a stamp of approval for the trial court’s findings in every case.
A key point of contestation, the “alternative map” issue was addressed by Gore, arguing that challengers in racial gerrymandering cases are expected to submit an alternative map to prove that the legislature could have achieved its goals without resorting to racial motives. But Kagan contradicted this assertion, stating there’s no requirement for an alternative map.
Chief Justice John Roberts also weighed in on the alternative map issue, implied that plaintiff’s lack of an alternative map and direct evidence at trial could mark a shift in racial gerrymandering jurisprudence.
Now that the oral arguments have concluded, the panel of judges is slated to deliberate on the matter. However, a final decision in the case is not anticipated for a few months.