In a highly contentious decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Republicans in South Carolina did not unlawfully consider race when redrawing a congressional district that disproportionately affected thousands of Black voters. The court's 6-3 decision, divided along ideological lines, has dealt a blow to civil rights plaintiffs who aimed to challenge racial gerrymandering practices in the state.

The specific case focused on the Charleston-area district represented by Republican Representative Nancy Mace. The court concluded that the civil rights groups involved had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that legislators were primarily motivated by race in the redistricting process.

While the Supreme Court deliberated the case, the lower court responsible for invalidating the district map allowed its use for the upcoming election. Therefore, the immediate impact of this ruling will not be felt in South Carolina. However, it establishes guidelines for future redistricting efforts, making it easier to draw maps that disadvantage Black voters as long as the map makers can contend that their focus was on political considerations rather than specifically targeting race.

Janai Nelson, president of the Legal Defense Fund, one of the civil rights groups involved in the case, expressed disappointment, stating, "The highest court in our land green-lit racial discrimination in South Carolina's redistricting process, denied Black voters the right to be free from race-based sorting, and sent a message that facts, process, and precedent will not protect the Black vote."

The court ultimately sided with Republican state officials who argued that their goal was to increase the Republican tilt in the district. Consequently, Representative Mace's district will remain unchanged, representing a setback for Democrats who sought a more favorable map. Litigation on a separate claim against the district map may still proceed.

Justice Samuel Alito, writing on behalf of the majority, emphasized the lack of direct evidence supporting the lower court's finding that race played a significant role in the redistricting process. Alito noted that the circumstantial evidence fell short of proving that race, rather than partisan preferences, influenced the drawing of the district. He further emphasized that state legislators should receive the benefit of the doubt when facing claims of discriminatory intent in their mapmaking process.

Critics of the ruling, such as Justice Elena Kagan, expressed concern over the message it sends to legislators and mapmakers, particularly with regards to racial gerrymandering. Kagan remarked, "What a message to send to state legislators and mapmakers about racial gerrymandering," emphasizing the potential consequences for minority voters and the potential suppression of their electoral influence.

The case before the Supreme Court involved a lower court ruling from January 2023, which found that race was a predominant factor in the drawing of one of South Carolina's congressional districts. Republicans, led by South Carolina Senate President Thomas Alexander, appealed the decision. After the 2020 census, Republicans redrew the district boundaries to strengthen GOP control in what had become a competitive district. The Republican candidate, Nancy Mace, won the seat in 2020 by a wider margin after the new map was implemented, following a narrow loss in 2018 to Democrat Joe Cunningham.

Approximately 30,000 Black voters were affected by the redistricting, with many being placed in the district held by Democratic Representative James Clyburn, who is Black. This district is the only one among the seven in South Carolina that is currently represented by a Democrat. Civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, alleged not only racial considerations but also the dilution of Black voters' power, bringing claims under the Constitution's 14th Amendment, which mandates equal application of the law.

This case differs from a major ruling earlier this year, in which civil rights advocates successfully challenged Republican-drawn maps in Alabama under the Voting Rights Act. The South Carolina ruling, however, presents a setback for those seeking to combat racial gerrymandering in the redistricting process and sets a precedent that puts the onus on plaintiffs to provide stronger evidence of discriminatory intent.