Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP (Congressional Map Challenge)
Merit Brief
Once the Supreme Court has granted certiorari and agreed to review a case 鈥渙n the merits,鈥 each party files merits briefs. The merits briefs argue to the Court why each party should win the case. The Petitioner files the opening brief; the Respondent files a response; and the Petitioner files a Reply Brief.
What's at Stake
South Carolina unlawfully assigned voters to congressional districts based on their race and intentionally discriminated against Black voters in violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
Summary
In 2022, South Carolina adopted a racially gerrymandered congressional map. The state mapmakers moved hundreds of thousands of South Carolinians to different congressional districts, carefully calibrating the districts鈥 Black populations in all but one district to a low enough level to deny Black voters the equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. The legislature singled out minority communities, cracking predominantly Black cities and neighborhoods across multiple districts to reduce their electoral influence. As a result of those changes, Black voters have no meaningful opportunity to elect their preferred candidates in six of the seven districts in South Carolina.
The 老澳门开奖结果, along with the 老澳门开奖结果 of South Carolina, NAACP LDF, and Arnold & Porter, sued on behalf of the South Carolina NAACP and affected voters to challenge the constitutionality of the new congressional map. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids the sorting of voters on the basis of their race, absent a compelling interest. The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments also forbid intentional racial discrimination. The suit alleged that South Carolina violated these principles.
After a two-week trial, a panel of three federal judges unanimously concluded that South Carolina鈥檚 congressional map is unconstitutional. The court found that the legislature imposed a racial target of 17% in Congressional District 1鈥攖he coastal district from which tens of thousands of Black Charlestonians had been excised. Notably, the court found that the legislature abandoned multiple redistricting principles in order to 鈥渂leach[]鈥 Black voters from their former district. Those changes were not needed to respond to population shifts identified by the 2020 Census.
South Carolina appealed to the Supreme Court. The state contends that it moved Black voters for partisan reasons, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that race may not be used as a proxy for political characteristics.
Because the trial court correctly found the state engaged in racial gerrymandering and racial discrimination, the 老澳门开奖结果 is advocating for the implementation of a fair and lawful map in time for the 2024 election cycle. On March 28, 2024, three-judge district court issued an order allowing South Carolina鈥檚 racially gerrymandered congressional map to remain in place for 2024 elections. This order comes in response to defendants鈥 delayed request to keep the unconstitutional map in place pending appeal of the panel鈥檚 post-trial order to the U.S. Supreme Court.
On May 23, 2024, the Supreme Court reversed the trial court's finding that Congressional District 1 in South Carolina is an unconstitutional gerrymander. The Court also ruled that the district court applied the wrong standard for Plaintiffs' intentional vote dilution claim and remanded that piece of the case for further proceedings at the district court.
Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the remainder of the case in July 2024.
Legal Documents
-
05/23/2024
Opinion -
03/26/2024
South Carolina's Reply in Support of Emergency Stay Application -
03/25/2024
Plaintiffs Response and Opposition to South Carolina's Request for A Stay -
03/18/2024
South Carolina's Emergency Stay Application -
09/11/2023
Reply Brief for Appellants -
08/11/2023
Appellees' Merits Brief -
04/12/2023
State's Opposition to Motion to Affirm -
03/29/2023
S.C. NAACP's Motion to Affirm -
02/17/2023
South Carolina's Jurisdictional Statement
Date Filed: 05/23/2024
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 03/26/2024
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 03/25/2024
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 03/18/2024
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 09/11/2023
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 08/11/2023
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 04/12/2023
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 03/29/2023
Court: Supreme Court
Date Filed: 02/17/2023
Court: Supreme Court
-
03/28/2024
Order Modifying Preliminary Injunction (Allowing 2024 Elections to Proceed on Challenged Map) -
04/02/2023
Order Denying Motion to Stay Pending Appeal to Supreme Court -
02/03/2023
Plaintiffs Opp. to Defendants Motion to Stay Pending Appeal to Supreme Court -
01/27/2023
Defendants' Motion for a Stay Pending Appeal -
01/06/2023
Courts Order_Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -
10/11/2022
Plaintiffs Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law -
09/15/2022
Courts Order Denying Defendants Joint Motion for Summary Judgment -
09/09/2022
Defendants Joint Reply in Support of Motion for Summary Judgment -
10/04/2022
Plaintiffs Opposition to Defendants Joint Motion for Summary Judgment -
08/19/2022
Defendants Joint Motion for Summary Judgment -
06/28/2022
Order denying House & Senate Defendants Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
06/06/2022
Senate Defendants Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
06/10/2022
House Defendants Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
06/03/2022
Plaintiffs Opp. to House Defendants Motion to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
06/03/2022
Plaintifffs Opp. to Senate Defendants' Mot to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
05/20/2022
House Defendants Mot to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
05/20/2022
Senate Defendants Mot to Dismiss Third Amended Complaint -
05/06/2022
Third Amended Complaint
Date Filed: 03/28/2024
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 04/02/2023
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 02/03/2023
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 01/27/2023
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 01/06/2023
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 10/11/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 09/15/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 09/09/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 10/04/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 08/19/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 06/28/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 06/06/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 06/10/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 06/03/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 06/03/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 05/20/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 05/20/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Date Filed: 05/06/2022
Court: The United States District Court for the District of South Carolina Columbia Division
Press Releases
U.S. Supreme Court Rejects Unanimous Post-Trial Decision and Long-Settled Precedent, Allows South Carolina鈥檚 Racially Discriminatory Congressional Map to Stand
Black Voters in South Carolina Urge U.S. Supreme Court to Deny Stay in Racial Gerrymandering Case
District Court Allows South Carolina's Racially Gerrymandered Congressional Map to Remain in Place for 2024 Election Cycle
Oral Arguments Wrap in U.S. Supreme Court Case Challenging South Carolina鈥檚 Congressional Map for Racial Discrimination
U.S. Supreme Court Will Hear Appeal in South Carolina Redistricting Case That Held State Gerrymandered Black Voters