
Justices Take Up South Carolina Redistricting Dispute
10/13/23 • 20 min
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Previous Episode

Barrett, Kavanaugh Could Be Key in CFPB Funding Fight
Whether funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is unlawful or not could rest with conservative Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, one court watcher says.
Brennan Center for Justice President and CEO Michael Waldman joins Cases and Controversies to discuss a challenge to the Obama-era agency that was set up in the aftermath of the financial crisis to regulate mortgages, auto loans and credit cards.
He says it’s unclear how the court ultimately will rule following argument Oct. 3 over the agency’s funding structure, but notes that Trump appointees Kavanaugh and Barrett, especially, merit watching.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
Next Episode

Barrett Rocks Out As Justices Return to Courtroom
Justice Amy Coney Barrett made news this week when she became the latest justice to back a high court ethics code, but her tale of rocking out to the turn-of-the-century hit "Who Let the Dogs Out" in the stately halls of the highest court in the land stole the show.
Cases and Controversies hosts Kimberly Robinson and Greg Stohr catch up on all the justices' latest activities. They also highlight the biggest cases being argued during the court's November sitting, from guns, to social media, to the "Trump Too Small" trademark dispute.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
If you like this episode you’ll love
Episode Comments
Generate a badge
Get a badge for your website that links back to this episode
<a href="https://goodpods.com/podcasts/cases-and-controversies-111636/justices-take-up-south-carolina-redistricting-dispute-34898676"> <img src="https://storage.googleapis.com/goodpods-images-bucket/badges/generic-badge-1.svg" alt="listen to justices take up south carolina redistricting dispute on goodpods" style="width: 225px" /> </a>
Copy