via
Frinkiac
&
Getty
&
my
photoshop
skills
After
deciding
last
week
in
Callais
v.
Louisiana
that
the
state
could
redraw
its
congressional
maps
to
fully
eliminate
its
majority-minority
districts
—
quite
the
feat
in
a
state
where
Black
majorities
exist
geographically
and
logically
centralized
in
a
city
like
New
Orleans
—
the
conservative
majority
of
the
Supreme
Court
is
back
at
it,
waiving
its
own
rules
to
expedite
the
process.
Voting
had
already
started
in
Louisiana,
and
while
the
Supreme
Court’s
rules
require
waiting
32
days
before
issuing
a
final
judgment,
the
majority
rebuffed
standard
procedure
so
Louisiana
could
start
the
work
of
drawing
wall-to-wall
white
majority
districts.
Justice
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson
objected
to
waiving
the
32-day
rule
and
managed
to
put
Sam
Alito
on
tilt
in
the
process.
Is
the
32-day
rule
important?
Not
really.
It
exists
to
give
parties
an
opportunity
to
petition
for
rehearing,
and
no
one
in
this
case
has
shown
any
interest
in
a
rehearing.
Indeed,
parties
rarely
seek
a
rehearing,
meaning
the
Supreme
Court
probably
doesn’t
need
this
default
rule
at
all.
But
it
has
chosen
to
keep
this
rule,
and
what’s
more,
it
has
waived
this
rule
even
more
rarely
—
only
twice
before.
Justice
Jackson
penned
a
dissent
based
on
the
simple
premise
that,
if
the
Supreme
Court
is
going
to
insist
upon
this
unnecessary
rule,
there’s
no
reason
to
depart
from
it
based
on
this
record.
And
Alito
lost
his
absolute
mind.
“The
dissent
in
this
suit
levels
charges
that
cannot
go
unanswered,”
Alito
begins,
joined
by
Thomas
and
Gorsuch,
demanding
to
be
heard.
It’s
the
opening
salvo
in
a
short
concurrence
that
brands
Jackson’s
arguments
as
“trivial”
and
“baseless
and
insulting.”
It’s
a
disproportionate
response
given
the
dissent’s
calm
and
measured
stance
that
the
Court’s
own
rules
should
be
followed
to
avoid
the
appearance
of
political
favoritism
that
would
flow
from
choosing
to
jettison
a
rule
that
the
Court
has
stuck
by
in
hundreds
upon
hundreds
of
decisions.
“The
dissent
would
require
that
the
2026
congressional
elections
in
Louisiana
be
held
under
a
map
that
has
been
held
to
be
unconstitutional,”
he
complains,
noting
in
a
footnote
that
the
case
was
argued
seven
months
ago.
“The
dissent
does
not
claim
that
it
is
now
too
late
for
the
state
legislature
or
the
District
Court
to
adopt
a
new
map
that
complies
with
the
Constitution.
Nor
does
the
dissent
assert
that
it
is
not
feasible
for
the
elections
to
be
held
under
such
a
map.”
The
dissent
does
not
at
all
suggest
that
the
election
be
held
under
the
newly
unconstitutional
maps.
In
fact,
Justice
Jackson
is
explicit
that
she
is
not
claiming
Louisiana
is
incapable
of
drawing
a
new
map
before
the
election
and
that’s
the
point.
In
her
opinion,
she’s
pretty
sure
Louisiana
can
draw
a
new
map
a
month
from
now
too!
The
majority
had
this
case
for
seven
months
and
decided
to
upend
an
election
after
votes
had
already
been
cast.
The
majority’s
opinion
rests
on
the
assumption
that
it’s
never
too
late
to
redraw
maps,
forcing
the
obvious
follow-up:
if
seven
months
and
waiting
until
the
election
started
wasn’t
late
enough…
why
not
eight?
It’s
an
uncomfortable
question
for
the
majority
because
it
requires
grappling
with
the
reality
of
the
Callais
decision.
Donald
Trump
pressured
Texas
into
a
mid-cycle
redistricting
process
to
net
five
additional
GOP-leaning
seats
in
an
effort
to
shore
up
the
narrow
Republican
majority
in
the
House
of
Representatives
(and
a
majority
poised
to
become
a
minority
after
November’s
elections).
But
it
seems
Trump
and
his
allies
hadn’t
counted
in
states
like
California
and
Virginia
asking
their
voters
to
approve
new
maps
wiping
out
GOP-leaning
districts.
Suddenly,
a
pair
of
majority-minority
districts
in
Louisiana
took
on
more
significance
for
Republican
political
operatives.
And
six
particular
Republican
political
operatives
decided
to
expedite
a
Louisiana
case
to
give
the
Red
team
some
more
breathing
room
—
even
if
it
came
well
into
an
ongoing
election
process.
More
to
the
point,
waiving
the
32-day
waiting
period
is
less
about
giving
Louisiana
an
extra
month
to
impose
new
maps,
and
more
about
signaling
to
the
rest
of
the
Deep
South
that
they
are
free
to
follow
suit
immediately.
The
conservatives
on
the
Supreme
Court
want
Alabama
to
know
that
the
Court
will
bulldoze
any
existing
rule
that
might
seem
like
an
obstacle
to
beginning
this
process
from
scratch
in
May
of
an
election
year.
But
that’s
all
the
stuff
that
the
majority
would
prefer
remain
unsaid.
And
Alito
is
enraged
that
Justice
Jackson
threw
a
spotlight
on
it.
The
dissent
goes
on
to
claim
that
our
decision
represents
an
unprincipled
use
of
power.
See
post,
at
4
(“And
just
like
that,
those
principles
give
way
to
power”).
That
is
a
groundless
and
utterly
irresponsible
charge.
What
principle
has
the
Court
violated?
The
principle
that
Rule
45.3’s
32-day
default
period
should
never
be
shortened
even
when
there
is
good
reason
to
do
so?
The
principle
that
we
should
never
take
any
action
that
might
unjustifiably
be
criticized
as
partisan?
Adverbs,
on
the
other
hand,
throw
a
spotlight
on
weak
legal
argument.
It’s
not
that
every
adverb
is
presumptively
evil
(see!),
but
when
legal
writing
becomes
littered
with
gratuitous
adverbs,
it
should
raise
a
red
flag.
If
the
underlying
claim
can
stand
on
its
merits,
it
doesn’t
need
adverbial
scaffolding.
“Utterly”
and
“unjustifiably”
are
tells.
The
word
“Purcell”
does
not
appear
in
Alito’s
concurrence.
It
does
appear
in
Jackson’s
dissent,
however,
where
she
points
out
that
five
months
ago
this
same
Court
invoked
the
Purcell
principle
to
scold
that
federal
courts
should
“not
alter
the
election
rules
on
the
eve
of
an
election.”
That
was
in
Abbott
v.
League
of
United
Latin
American
Citizens,
where
the
conservatives
scolded
courts
for
getting
involved
in
changing
election
laws
that
could
interfere
with
Texas
stripping
Latino
populations
of
representation.
Five
months
ago
was
too
late
for
courts
to
interfere
to
save
minority
representation,
but
five
months
later
it’s
not
only
acceptable
but
necessary
for
the
courts
to
intervene
to
restore
the
Jim
Crow
order.
Consistency
is
the
hobgoblin
of
good
faith
minds.
This
is
classic
Ketanji
Brown
Jackson.
The
junior
justice
takes
a
lot
of
heat
from
angry
right-wing
critics
who
cast
her
as
an
unqualified
diversity
hire.
It’s
all
deeply
racist,
but
the
critics
do
generate
a
lot
of
traction
off
KBJ’s
confusing
and
sometimes
questionably
relevant
questions
and
arguments.
Snipped
from
the
surrounding
context,
some
of
her
points
land
out-of-blue
—
who
expected
a
line
of
questions
about
Japanese
pickpockets
in
the
birthright
citizenship
case?
—
but
it’s
all
part
of
her
style.
Jackson
slow-plays
people,
hitting
them
with
a
disorienting
and
unfamiliar
premise
before
teasing
them
back
to
the
core
point,
extracting
key
concessions
along
the
way.
It’s
a
technique
likely
rooted
in
her
years
cross-examining
witnesses
as
an
advocate,
and
it
sticks
out
in
appellate
practice.
But
it
really
rubs
arrogant
guys
the
wrong
way.
It
disrupts
their
planned
conversation
and
makes
them
more
and
more
agitated
as
they
sink
deeper
into
the
quicksand
she
lays
out.
Who
really
cares
if
they
waive
Rule
45.3
in
a
case
where
no
one
seeks
a
rehearing?
No
one.
But
unable
to
contain
their
fury,
Alito,
Thomas,
and
Gorsuch
can’t
help
themselves
but
churn
out
a
handful
of
pages
lambasting
Jackson.
All
they
manage
to
accomplish
is
a
testament
to
the
institution’s
collapsing
legitimacy,
as
they
rage
against
the
prospect
of
having
to
explain
themselves
when
Supreme
Court
“decorum”
traditionally
allows
the
justices
to
issue
rulings
without
having
to
square
these
contradictions
and
hypocrisies.
She
forced
them
to
try
to
spin
a
justification
other
than
Republican
operatives
using
a
life-tenured
supermajority
to
engineer
a
political
order
that
they
cannot
win
at
the
ballot
box.
Note
that
Chief
Justice
Roberts
steered
clear
of
this
scuffle.
That’s
a
man
who
understands
the
meaning
of
the
maxim
that
it’s
better
to
say
nothing
than
be
thought
an
inveterate
racist
than
open
your
mouth
and
remove
all
doubt.
Alito
and
company
could’ve
just
signed
the
order
and
not
taken
the
bait.
Then
again,
if
Sam
Alito
wanted
Black
women
to
express
themselves,
he
wouldn’t
have
written
Callais.
Joe
Patrice is
a
senior
editor
at
Above
the
Law
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
Feel
free
to email
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments.
Follow
him
on Twitter or
Bluesky
if
you’re
interested
in
law,
politics,
and
a
healthy
dose
of
college
sports
news.