Loading...
Market
Justice Clarence Thomas's stance in future gerrymandering cases
5
Resolution / Starting Odds
Supports more non-justiciable rulings • 33%
Opposes further non-justiciable rulings • 33%
Abstains from similar decisions • 34%
Supreme Court decisions and statements
Story
Supreme Court Upholds South Carolina GOP Map, Moves 30,000 Black Voters
May 23, 2024, 02:27 PM
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of South Carolina Republicans in a significant gerrymandering case, Alexander v. SC NAACP. In a 6-3 decision, the Court reversed a lower court's ruling that had found South Carolina's congressional map to be a racial gerrymander. The conservative majority, led by Justice Alito, upheld the map, which had moved approximately 30,000 Black residents out of a congressional district held by Rep. Nancy Mace. All three liberal justices dissented. Justice Clarence Thomas, in a concurring opinion, argued that racial gerrymandering claims should be considered non-justiciable political questions. The ruling has been seen as a blow to efforts to challenge racial gerrymandering, with critics arguing that it will make it harder to contest such practices in the future. The lower court had described the map as causing a 'bleaching' effect and 'exiling' Black voters.
View original story
Similar markets
Public support • 25%
Public criticism • 25%
No public comment • 25%
Mixed responses • 25%
Labor law • 25%
Environmental law • 25%
Civil rights • 25%
Corporate law • 25%
Recusal from specific cases • 25%
Public statement addressing issues • 25%
Resignation from the Supreme Court • 25%
No significant action • 25%
Formal reprimand issued • 25%
No action taken • 25%
Public statement of support • 25%
Public statement of criticism • 25%
Alito recuses from all Trump-related cases • 33%
Alito recuses from some Trump-related cases • 33%
Alito does not recuse from any Trump-related cases • 33%
Impeachment initiated • 25%
Censured by the Senate • 25%
No significant impact • 25%
Resigns voluntarily • 25%
Resigns • 25%
Impeached • 25%
Continues in position • 25%
Retires voluntarily • 25%
Recuses from all related cases • 33%
Recuses from some but not all related cases • 33%
Does not recuse from any related cases • 34%
Releases another public statement • 33%
Takes a formal stance in support of judicial independence • 33%
Takes no further action or statement • 34%