SCOTUS Rules Challenged South Carolina District Is Not a Racial Gerrymander

In Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. ____ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court held that the lower court erred in finding that a South Carolina congressional district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court, which was divided along ideological lines, also set a high bar for challengers to meet in future gerrymandering cases.

The Facts of the Case

Following the 2020 Census, South Carolina was tasked with redrawing its congressional district maps because of population shifts in two of its seven districts—Districts 1 and 6. The State Senate subcommittee responsible for drawing the new map issued a statement explaining that the process would be guided by traditional districting principles along with the goal of creating a stronger Republican tilt in District 1.

To draw the new maps, the Senate turned to Will Roberts, a nonpartisan staffer with experience in drawing reapportionment plans. Roberts’ plan (the Enacted Plan) achieved the legislature’s political goal by increasing District 1’s projected Republican vote share by 1.36% to 54.39%. The plan also raised the black voting-age population (BVAP) from 16.56% to 16.72%. The legislature adopted the plan, and the Governor signed it into law.

The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and District 1 voter Taiwan Scott (Challengers), challenged the plan, alleging that it resulted in racial gerrymanders in certain districts and in the dilution of the electoral power of the State’s black voters. The three-judge District Court held that the State drew District 1 with a 17% BVAP target in mind in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and that this putative use of race to draw District 1 unlawfully diluted the black vote.

The Majority Decision

By a vote of 6-3, the Court held that the District Court’s finding that race predominated in the design of District I in the Enacted Plan was clearly erroneous

In reaching its decision, the majority emphasizedthe demanding burden that plaintiffs bringing a racial gerrymandering case must satisfy. As Justice Samuel Alito explained, the Court has “repeatedly emphasized that federal courts must ‘exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race.” “Such caution,” he wrote, “is necessary because “[f]ederal-court review of districting legislation represents a serious intrusion on the most vital of local functions.”

The majority went on to find that none of the facts on which the District Court relied to infer a racial motive was sufficient to support an inference that can overcome the presumption of legislative good faith.

“No direct evidence supports the District Court’s finding that race predominated in the design of District 1,” Justice Alito wrote. “The circumstantial evidence falls far short of showing that race, not partisan preferences, drove the districting process.” He added: “The fact of the matter is that politics pervaded the highly visible mapmaking process from start to finish.”

The majority also found that the district court relied on “deeply flawed” expert reports and “critically erred” by failing to draw an adverse inference against the Challengers for not providing an adequate alternate map.

“A plaintiff’s failure to submit an alternative map—precisely because it can be designed with ease—should be interpreted by district courts as an implicit concession that the plaintiff cannot draw a map that undermines the legislature’s defense that the districting lines were ‘based on a permissible, rather than a prohibited, ground,” Justice Alito wrote.

The Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Sotomayor and Jackson joined. “The proper response to this case is not to throw up novel roadblocks enabling South Carolina to continue dividing citizens along racial lines,” she wrote. “It is to respect the plausible — no, the more than plausible — findings of the district court that the state engaged in race-based districting. And to tell the state that it must redraw District 1, this time without targeting African-American citizens.”