In a 6-3 decision this week, the Supreme Court made it more challenging for plaintiffs to win racial gerrymandering claims, leading legal experts to express their concern about the court's shift away from policing gerrymandering cases. The decision, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, requires plaintiffs to prove that the state had the "purpose and effect" of diluting the minority vote, rather than just showing that race played a predominant role in redistricting.

The NAACP's South Carolina State Conference had filed a lawsuit against South Carolina's GOP-led legislature over the new congressional map, which shifted tens of thousands of Black voters to a different district. Lawmakers appealed to the Supreme Court after a three-judge panel found the district to be an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Experts such as Bertrall Ross, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, found the decision unsurprising given the court's recent rulings on gerrymandering. Ross highlighted the difficulties in distinguishing between racial and partisan gerrymandering, as there is a historical correlation between racial and partisan voting. He expressed concern that the court's stance would make it easier for states to argue that partisanship, rather than race, influenced redistricting decisions, thus making it harder to address real cases of racial gerrymandering.

Nicholas Stephanopoulos, a professor at Harvard Law School, pointed out that the court's decision does not apply when line drawers consider race to comply with the Voting Rights Act. He noted the asymmetry in protection when the defense is partisan gerrymandering compared to compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

The Supreme Court's decision has drawn criticism for its potential consequences, particularly for racial minorities and minority political parties seeking representation. Ross warned that the decision could subject these groups to abuse from legislatures and discriminatory laws that they may enact, further exacerbating the polarization and racialization of the country.

Both Ross and Stephanopoulos criticized Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent, in which he argued that federal courts should no longer decide redistricting lawsuits. Stephanopoulos found Thomas' position to be undemocratic and anti-democratic, stating that it would hinder the courts from intervening in a practice that distorts American politics.

The South Carolina case itself was seen by experts as a weak case for racial gerrymandering. Ross noted that the district in question had only a slight variation in the voting age population, which did not meet the typical standards for racial gerrymandering. Experts pointed to other cases in the 2010s, such as those in Virginia, Alabama, and North Carolina, as stronger instances of racial gerrymandering.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court's decision has raised concerns about its implications for addressing racial gerrymandering effectively. Experts highlight the need for the court to play a vital role in policing racially motivated redistricting decisions and stress the importance of protecting minority representation and equal access to the democratic process.