Amicus With Dahlia Lithwick | Opinionpalooza: Justice Alito Flies the Flag for Racial Gerrymanders

Release Date: May 23, 2024
Host: Dahlia Lithwick
Guest: Mark Joseph Stern
Episode Focus: The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, its implications for racial gerrymandering, and the broader state of voting rights in America.

Episode Overview

This preview episode dives into the Supreme Court’s 6–3 ruling in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP, which found that South Carolina’s congressional map did not constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Host Dahlia Lithwick and legal analyst Mark Joseph Stern break down the decision, its context within the Court’s recent history, and the chilling effect it may have on the future of voting rights litigation.

Key Discussion Points and Insights

1. Opinionpalooza and the Supreme Court Term

• Lithwick introduces the episode as part of a rapid-fire release period ("Opinionpalooza"), with the Court poised to deliver dozens of major decisions.
  • Key Issues on the Docket:
    • Gun rights for adjudicated abusers
    • The future of the FDA’s authority over abortion drugs
    • Presidential immunity
    • The status of federal agencies
    • Rights of pre-viability fetuses vs. women
• (00:31): “We’re going to be releasing extra emergency episodes…with analysis of the biggest cases just as fast as Mark Stern and I can race to our closets and fire up our laptops.” – Dahlia Lithwick

2. Emerging Emergency: Not the Flag, but the Court’s Opinion

• Lithwick briefly mentions the controversy over extremist flags seen at Justice Alito’s homes, but quickly pivots:
  • (01:16): “Nope. The real emergency is the 6 to 3 decision handed down Thursday morning in Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP… It is a very dark day for voting rights.”

3. Breakdown of Alexander v. South Carolina NAACP

• The Case:
  • Challenged South Carolina’s congressional map as a racial gerrymander.
  • Lower court found that the state moved Black voters out of a competitive district to make it safer for Republicans, violating the Equal Protection Clause.
  • Supreme Court reversed, siding with the state and conservative majority.
• Justice Alito’s Opinion:
  • Found “race was not, in fact, the predominant reason for the new maps.”
  • Effectively closed the door on future federal court challenges to racial gerrymanders.

4. Mark Joseph Stern on the Ruling’s Impact

• Severity of the Decision

  • (02:11): “It’s terrible. It’s a really, really bad decision, Dahlia. I know that people are used to, you know, hearing bad news about the Supreme Court, especially when it comes to voting rights… But this is terrible.”
  • Stern describes the ruling as closing off racial gerrymandering claims “forever” and labels the opinion as “gaslighty” and “mansplainy.”
  • (02:33): “…a maximally gaslighty way through the majority opinion by Justice Alito, which is so mansplainy it will make your eyeballs freeze over and pop right out.”
  • Calls the decision “the next step in the Supreme Court's march toward autocracy.”

• The End of Federal Oversight?

  • (02:56): “This feels like the end of federal courts being able to adjudicate racial gerrymandering claims. I just think it's over now.”

5. Doctrinal Complexity and the Demise of Minority Protection

• Lithwick acknowledges the area’s complexity:
  • (03:14): “I do think, Mark, that this is one of those eye crossingly complicated doctrinal areas that do tend to make people glaze over. It's not just voting rights, it's gerrymandering. It's not just racial, it's also political.”
• Asks Stern to explain how previous protections for minority voting rights have been systematically dismantled.

6. The Mechanics of the South Carolina Case

• Stern’s Summary:

  • South Carolina’s District 1—originally competitive—shifted left in the 2010s, culminating in a narrow Democratic win in 2018.
  • Republican legislature reacted after the 2020 census by moving Black voters (who tend to vote Democrat) out of District 1 and into an already Black-majority (and Democratic-overwhelming) district.
  • The result: A whiter, more GOP-friendly District 1.
  • Plaintiffs argued race, not party, was the true motive and thus unconstitutional.
  • Lower court agreed: Map was unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
  • Supreme Court reversed: Sided with the legislature, effectively rubberstamping racial sorting.

• Notable Quote:

  • (05:44): “We're just going to take these black voters in District 1 and shovel them right out. They're going to go elsewhere and we're going to move some white vot to District one. And by doing this switcheroo, we will shore up the district's Republican lean, make it less black, more lily white, and therefore more GOP-friendly. That's what they did. It worked.”
  • (06:35): “On Thursday the U.S. Supreme Court reversed that decision, rubber stamped the map and said Racial gerrymandering Now Racial gerrymandering tomorrow Racial gerrymandering forever.” – Mark Joseph Stern

Notable Quotes and Memorable Moments

• "This feels like the end of federal courts being able to adjudicate racial gerrymandering claims. I just think it's over now."
  — Mark Joseph Stern [02:56]

• “It is a very dark day for voting rights.”
  — Dahlia Lithwick [01:24]

• “A maximally gaslighty way through the majority opinion by Justice Alito, which is so mansplainy it will make your eyeballs freeze over and pop right out.”
  — Mark Joseph Stern [02:33]

• “Racial gerrymandering now, racial gerrymandering tomorrow, racial gerrymandering forever.”
  — Mark Joseph Stern [06:36]

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:04 – 01:14: Dahlia introduces the court's busy season and sets up the focus on Alexander v. SC NAACP
• 02:11 – 03:14: Stern’s “it’s terrible” reaction and explanation of the ruling’s importance
• 04:15 – 06:45: Stern breaks down the South Carolina redistricting, the lower court’s position, and the Supreme Court’s reversal

Tone and Language

• Informal, urgent, and heavily critical of the current Supreme Court majority
• Direct, at times sardonic and exasperated (“mansplainy,” “gaslighty,” “the end of an era”)
• Engaged in making complex legal doctrine accessible, with a clear call to grasp the moment’s significance

Conclusion

This episode captures a moment of profound anxiety for voting rights advocates as the Supreme Court’s conservative majority delivers a decision that, in the eyes of Lithwick and Stern, signals the end of meaningful federal checks on racial gerrymandering. Stern’s analysis frames the ruling as not merely a setback, but a potentially permanent change to the landscape of American democracy. The conversation is candid, critical, and tailored for listeners seeking quick, insightful legal analysis amidst a torrent of consequential Supreme Court decisions.

For deeper analysis and ongoing updates during 'opinionpalooza,' listeners are encouraged to join Slate Plus.