Breaking: Supreme Court affirms without opinion lower court order rejecting partisan gerrrymandering claim in North Carolina https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062818zr_k425.pdf … But two other cases remain pending and will work their way back to Court next term. This is somewhat of a surprise /1
-
Show this thread
-
I had been expecting this case would be sent back like the Common Cause and Legal of Women Voters partisan gerrymandering cases in NC for a new trial. But this was a summary affirmance. A summary affirmance means the lower court (which rejected the claim) got the RESULT right /2
1 reply 9 retweets 9 likesShow this thread -
but not necessarily the right reasoning. So how to read this summary affirmance? Does it mean that the lower court was right that there are no standards to decide when gerrymandering goes to far? Or were there other defects?
2 replies 6 retweets 11 likesShow this thread -
This matters because we will now see North Carolina argue in the remaining cases that the the summary affirmance means that these other cases should be dismissed too. Opponents will argue against dismissal. The cases will make their way back to the Court /4
1 reply 6 retweets 12 likesShow this thread -
And when the Court gets the NC partisan gerrymandering cases again, likely early next term, there will be no Kennedy but there will likely be a fifth vote to finally hold these issues "nonjusticiable," meaning they can't be decided by the courts. /5
2 replies 10 retweets 14 likesShow this thread -
Justice Scalia took the position that partisan gerrymandering cases were non-justiciable back in 2004 but J. Kennedy---the deciding vote---said we need more time to consider if there is a manageable standard. /6
1 reply 3 retweets 6 likesShow this thread -
This term's Gill and Benisek cases gave Kennedy the chance to finally agree to rein in gerrymandering. But he stayed silent even as J. Kagan in her concurrence fleshed out Kennedy's favorite theory that it violates the First Amendment /7
1 reply 3 retweets 7 likesShow this thread -
It is hard to believe that Scalia III (Gorsuch II) would do anything but side with Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch that these cases are nonjusticiable and courts should stay out. /8
1 reply 2 retweets 8 likesShow this thread -
Today's summary affirmance will just give another argument to
#ncga to try to avoid being reined in by the courts. But make no mistake: the kind of sharp gerrymandering practice in NC will now spread throughout the country in the 2020 round of redistricting /92 replies 14 retweets 13 likesShow this thread
as with many things, things that seem bad will be much worse with Kennedy gone. /10
-
-
Here's the
@SCOTUSBlog page for the lower court petitionhttp://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/harris-v-cooper/ …1 reply 3 retweets 4 likesShow this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.