Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Deadline Legal Blog-Louisiana map order highlights splits within the court's GOP and Democratic wings
Justice Jackson was the lone dissenter, prompting a rebuke from Justices Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch in the voting rights litigation.
Link to tweet
https://www.ms.now/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/louisiana-map-order-supreme-court-jackson-alito
The Supreme Court’s 6-3 ruling last week in Louisiana v. Callais provided a predictable snapshot of how the justices line up in some of the most crucial cases. The decision, which struck down the state’s congressional map for wrongly taking race into account, was a clean split between the GOP appointees — all of whom were in the majority, led by Justice Samuel Alito — and the Democratic appointees, led by Justice Elena Kagan. Her dissent doubled as an obituary for the Voting Rights Act, arguing that Callais marked the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition” of that landmark law.
But a subsequent order in the case, entered on Monday night, spotlights a murkier divide. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again was the lone dissenter calling out the majority, prompting Alito to pen a pointed rebuke in turn.
While the Callais ruling itself is incredibly important for redistricting across the country going forward, the order that sparked their exchange is a procedural one whose practical significance remains to be seen. It sent the case back to the lower court it came from. Typically, that doesn’t happen until 32 days after the ruling. That standard lag time gives the losing party time to file a long-shot petition for rehearing. (It’s a long shot because granting such a petition would require the justices to consider reversing course on a ruling they just made.)...
In her dissent, Jackson accused her colleagues of having “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
She chided the majority for intervening rather than avoiding “the appearance of partiality” by applying the court’s normal rules. Noting that early primary voting was already underway, she recalled the court’s decision backing Texas’ map last year, in which the majority criticized a lower court for “improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.” Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself” from “constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.” She called the court’s “abandon … unwarranted and unwise.”
That prompted a concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, that said the dissent “levels charges that cannot go unanswered.” He called it “groundless and utterly irresponsible” for Jackson to accuse the majority of exercising its power in an unprincipled way.
“What principle has the Court violated?” Alito wondered. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?” He concluded that Jackson’s claim that the court “unshackles itself” from “constraints” shows that it’s her “rhetoric that lacks restraint.”.....
Notably, they got yet another opportunity to weigh in. On Tuesday, the voters who opposed the fast-tracking returned to the justices, asking them to reverse the order they issued Monday. The voters noted that the court justified Monday’s order by saying they hadn’t “expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” But the voters pointed back to their opposition filing that said they wanted “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” To eliminate any doubt, they said in their motion Tuesday that they wanted to request rehearing.
Again, the practical significance of Monday’s order was unclear to begin with in terms of its effect on the midterms in Louisiana, where separate litigation is playing out in response to the GOP governor’s attempt to suspend the primary after voting had already begun. ....
But Tuesday’s motion meant the justices weren’t free of the litigation just yet. Though they may be now, at least with this chapter of the litigation, because on Wednesday, they denied the voters’ request to reopen the matter – this time without comment from any of the justices.
But a subsequent order in the case, entered on Monday night, spotlights a murkier divide. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson once again was the lone dissenter calling out the majority, prompting Alito to pen a pointed rebuke in turn.
While the Callais ruling itself is incredibly important for redistricting across the country going forward, the order that sparked their exchange is a procedural one whose practical significance remains to be seen. It sent the case back to the lower court it came from. Typically, that doesn’t happen until 32 days after the ruling. That standard lag time gives the losing party time to file a long-shot petition for rehearing. (It’s a long shot because granting such a petition would require the justices to consider reversing course on a ruling they just made.)...
In her dissent, Jackson accused her colleagues of having “spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.”
She chided the majority for intervening rather than avoiding “the appearance of partiality” by applying the court’s normal rules. Noting that early primary voting was already underway, she recalled the court’s decision backing Texas’ map last year, in which the majority criticized a lower court for “improperly insert[ing] itself into an active primary campaign.” Jackson said the majority “unshackles itself” from “constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.” She called the court’s “abandon … unwarranted and unwise.”
That prompted a concurring opinion by Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, that said the dissent “levels charges that cannot go unanswered.” He called it “groundless and utterly irresponsible” for Jackson to accuse the majority of exercising its power in an unprincipled way.
“What principle has the Court violated?” Alito wondered. “The principle that Rule 45.3’s 32-day default period should never be shortened even when there is good reason to do so? The principle that we should never take any action that might unjustifiably be criticized as partisan?” He concluded that Jackson’s claim that the court “unshackles itself” from “constraints” shows that it’s her “rhetoric that lacks restraint.”.....
Notably, they got yet another opportunity to weigh in. On Tuesday, the voters who opposed the fast-tracking returned to the justices, asking them to reverse the order they issued Monday. The voters noted that the court justified Monday’s order by saying they hadn’t “expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.” But the voters pointed back to their opposition filing that said they wanted “the opportunity to consider seeking rehearing.” To eliminate any doubt, they said in their motion Tuesday that they wanted to request rehearing.
Again, the practical significance of Monday’s order was unclear to begin with in terms of its effect on the midterms in Louisiana, where separate litigation is playing out in response to the GOP governor’s attempt to suspend the primary after voting had already begun. ....
But Tuesday’s motion meant the justices weren’t free of the litigation just yet. Though they may be now, at least with this chapter of the litigation, because on Wednesday, they denied the voters’ request to reopen the matter – this time without comment from any of the justices.
Jackson's dissent was great and hurt Alito's feelings. Alito is a racist who bent the rules to allow Louisiana to change the electoral maps even after votes had been casted. Alito is a racist asshole