October Term 2023 · Docket 22-807

Does preserving a district's shape prove race did not drive its creation?

Appellants claim political goals drove the map. Appellees argue race predominated in the line drawing.

Official caption
Alexander v. SC Conference of NAACP
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Decided
Sources analyzed through
Post Opinion

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  3. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  4. — An official Court opinion was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Appellants argue the legislature pursued a political goal of increasing Republican vote share.

    Appellees argue the state defendants disclaimed race but the disparities suggest otherwise.

    argument_detail

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case tests how courts weigh evidence when race and politics overlap in redistricting.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on October 11, 2023.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Appellants want the court to reverse the lower court's finding of a racial gerrymander.

Appellees want the court to affirm the lower court's finding that race predominated.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Appellants argue the legislature preserved the district's shape based on traditional criteria and politics.

Appellees argue the district's shape reflects a racial intent despite political correlations.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Kagan asked if an alternative study controlling for geography reached a different result.

Justice Alito asked if the prior case involved direct evidence of intent.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

The outcome defines how courts distinguish between political and racial motives in map drawing.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Verified official opinions and orders

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Post Opinion ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON