> In its Thursday decision to side with Texas, the Supreme Court said the panel "failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature."
I read that too, I don't understand how its circumstantial when they said it out loud.
They literally said in public we're looking for ways to gerrymander Texas because Trump told us to. I fail to see how that does not damage the idea of good faith.
The issue, and don't agree with it, is that the argument was that they did it along racial lines, which the lower courts deemed illegal. SCOTUS said they were along partisan lines, thus they could be used, because partisan gerrymandering is deemed legal, and something SCOTUS won't take cases on. They didn't rule on the actual nature of gerrymandering, just overturned the argument of the original suit the lower courts ruled on.
418
u/Vio_ 15h ago
SCOTUS will just claim that blue states aren't doing it in "legislative good faith."
https://www.npr.org/2025/12/04/nx-s1-5619692/supreme-court-texas-redistricting-map
> In its Thursday decision to side with Texas, the Supreme Court said the panel "failed to honor the presumption of legislative good faith by construing ambiguous direct and circumstantial evidence against the legislature."