Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Thomas C. Alexander, in His Official Capacity as President of the South Carolina Senate, et al., Appellants v. The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
Paid petition · United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, No. 3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG · judgment January 6, 2023
Before the decision, about 10.9× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a direct appeal from a three-judge district court (mandatory jurisdiction), a petition filed soon after the judgment below, and counsel who has filed here before.
Questions presented
The three-judge district court never mentioned the presumption of the South Carolina General Assembly's good faith, analyzed Congressional District 1 as a whole, or examined the intent of the General Assembly as a whole. It also disregarded the publicly available election data used to draw District 1 and legislator testimony demonstrating that politics and traditional districting principles better explain District 1 than race. And it never identified an alternative map that achieved the General Assembly's political objectives while similarly adhering to traditional criteria. The court nonetheless held that a portion of District 1 is racially gerrymandered and discriminatory, and therefore permanently enjoined elections there. After an eightday trial featuring more than twenty witnesses and hundreds of exhibits, the court rested this holding on its brief questioning of the experienced nonpartisan map drawer and its conclusion that he used a racial target as a proxy for politics in District 1. Plaintiffs did not pursue that theory at trial, and the court never explained why the General Assembly would use race as a proxy to draw lines for political reasons when it could (and did) use election data directly to do the job. The questions presented are:
-
Did the district court err when it failed to apply the presumption of good faith and to holistically analyze District 1 and the General Assembly's intent?
-
Did the district court err in failing to enforce the alternative-map requirement m this circumstantial case?
-
Did the district court err when it failed to disentangle race from politics?
-
Did the district court err in finding racial predominance when it never analyzed District l's compliance with traditional districting principles?
-
Did the district court clearly err in finding that the General Assembly used a racial target as a proxy for politics when the record showed only that the General Assembly was aware of race, that race and politics are highly correlated, and that the General Assembly drew districts based on election data?
-
Did the district court err in upholding the intentional discrimination claim when it never even considered whether-let alone found that-District 1 has a discriminatory effect? JURISDICTION NOTED 5/15/2023
Counsel of record
For petitioner
John Matthew Gore
Jones Day
For respondent
Adriel I. Cepeda Derieux
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
Case
Conference history
Distributed for 2 conferences
Amicus briefs
16 cert-stage
Argument & decision
Argued October 11, 2023 — John M. Gore · Leah C. Aden · Caroline A. Flynn. Audio and transcript
Decided May 23, 2024. Opinion by Alito.
Proceedings
- Jun 24 2024Judgment Issued.
- Jun 03 2024Application (23A851) referred to the Court.
- Jun 03 2024Application (23A851) denied by the Court.
- May 23 2024Adjudged to be REVERSED IN PART and REMANDED IN PART. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part III–C. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined.
- Mar 28 2024Letter of March 28, 2024 from counsel for Senate Appellants filed.
- Mar 26 2024Reply of applicants in support of the application for stay filed.
- Mar 25 2024Response to application from respondents The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. filed.
- Mar 21 2024Response to application (23A851) requested by The Chief Justice, due by noon (EDT), on March 25, 2024.
- Mar 18 2024Application (23A851) for a stay, submitted to The Chief Justice.
- Oct 11 2023Argued. For appellants: John M. Gore, Washington, D. C. For appellees: Leah C. Aden, New York, N. Y. For United States, as amicus curiae: Caroline A. Flynn, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.
- Sep 26 2023Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED.
- Sep 11 2023Reply of appellant Senate Appellants filed. (Distributed)
- Sep 01 2023Video exhibits from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina record electronically received and available with the Clerk.
- Aug 18 2023Brief amicus curiae of Constitutional Accountability Center filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amici curiae of Political Science Professors filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amici curiae of Lawyers’ Committee For Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amici curiae of League of Women Voters of South Carolina, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amici curiae of Nicholas O. Stephanopoulos and Jowei Chen filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amicus curiae of Congressman James E. Clyburn filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 18 2023Brief amici curiae of Historians filed. (Distributed)
- Aug 16 2023Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed.
- Aug 11 2023Brief of appellees The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al. filed.
- Aug 11 2023Supplemental Joint appendix filed.(Distributed)
- Jul 27 2023CIRCULATED
- Jul 18 2023Complete record on appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina electronically received and available with the Clerk.
- Jul 17 2023Record requested from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina.
- Jul 14 2023SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 11, 2023.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amicus curiae of United States in support of neither party filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amici curiae of Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amicus curiae of Governor Henry McMaster filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amici curiae of Nancy Mace, Joe Wilson, Jeff Duncan, William Timmons, Ralph Norman, and Russell Fry filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amici curiae of State of Alabama, et al. filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amicus curiae of National Republican Redistricting Trust filed.
- Jul 14 2023Brief amicus curiae of Fair Lines America Foundation filed.
- Jul 07 2023Brief of Appellants filed.
- Jul 07 2023Joint appendix filed. (Distributed) (Statement of costs filed)
- Jun 01 2023Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and appellants' brief on the merits is extended to and including July 7, 2023. The time to file appellees' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 11, 2023.
- May 25 2023Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed.
- May 15 2023Probable jurisdiction noted.
- May 08 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 5/11/2023.
- Apr 12 2023DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 4/28/2023.
- Apr 12 2023Opposition to motion of Senate Appellants, et al. filed. (Distributed)
- Mar 29 2023Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed.
- Mar 29 2023Brief amicus curiae of National Republican Redistricting Trust filed.
- Mar 29 2023Motion to affirm filed by appellees The South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, et al.
- Feb 17 2023Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due March 29, 2023)