The question
Whether the District Court clearly erred in finding that race predominated over politics in South Carolina's design of Congressional District 1 in its enacted redistricting plan.
Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP
What the Court decided
The Court reversed the District Court's judgment. It held that the finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 was clearly erroneous. The Challengers offered no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, their circumstantial evidence was very weak, and they never produced an alternative map showing the legislature's partisan goal could be met while raising the Black voting-age population in District 1. Because race and partisan preference were highly correlated, the Challengers failed to disentangle the two and overcome the presumption that the legislature acted in good faith.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Alito, joined by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett, Thomas
The District Court clearly erred in finding that race predominated in District 1. The Challengers bore a demanding burden to show the legislature subordinated race-neutral principles to racial considerations, and they failed to carry it. They offered no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander, their circumstantial evidence was very weak, they relied on flawed expert reports, and they produced no alternative map showing the partisan goal could be achieved while raising the district's Black voting-age population above 17%. Findings are reviewed for clear error, with special care given the substantial legal component of the racial predominance test, and the four pieces of evidence the District Court relied on could not overcome the presumption of legislative good faith. Thomas joined all but Part III-C.
Concurring in part
Thomas, writing alone
Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part. He joined the Court's opinion except as to Part III-C.
Dissenting
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, disagreeing with the Court's reversal of the District Court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The District Court's finding that race predominated in the design of District 1 in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Challengers provided no direct evidence of a racial gerrymander and their circumstantial evidence was very weak.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Challengers did not offer a single alternative map showing the legislature's partisan goal could be achieved while raising the Black voting-age population in District 1.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court starts with a presumption that the legislature acted in good faith, and a challenger must disentangle race from politics to show race was the predominant motivating factor.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and by Thomas as to all but Part III-C; Kagan dissented, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup