SCOTUS FAST TRACKS Racist Congress Maps RULING?!?! | Unprecedented

The Supreme Court is fast-tracking a decision on Alabama's congressional maps, which a three-judge panel (including two Trump appointees) found to have 'enormous evidence of actual intentional racism.' This case tests the Supreme Court's own recent narrowing of the Voting Rights Act's Section 2 to only apply where intentional racism is proven. The hosts express concern that SCOTUS might still overturn the lower court's finding despite the clear evidence.

A three-judge panel, including two Trump appointees, found 'enormous evidence of actual intentional racism' in Alabama's congressional maps. The Supreme Court is now reviewing this on a fast track, with briefs due on Monday, raising questions about how they will apply their own new standard for Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

In a rare 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court, led by Justice Kavanaugh and joined by Chief Justice Roberts and the three liberal justices, overturned a death penalty conviction in Mississippi (Pritchard case). The ruling found that the defense was denied the opportunity to argue against the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for striking black jurors, violating the Batson precedent. This specific prosecutor and judge had a history of similar Batson violations, including a 2019 case (Curtis Flowers) also overturned by Kavanaugh.

Justice Kavanaugh authored a 5-4 majority opinion in the Pritchard case, joined by Roberts, Jackson, Kagan, and Sotomayor. The decision highlighted that the defense counsel was not given an opportunity to argue that the prosecutor's race-neutral reasons for peremptory strikes were pretextual, a violation of the Batson doctrine. Kavanaugh noted this was the same prosecutor and judge involved in a similar 2019 case (Curtis Flowers) where a conviction was also overturned for Batson violations.

The Supreme Court's 'shadow docket' involves emergency rulings made without full records, oral arguments, or extensive briefing, often with minimal explanation. Despite the Court's assertions that these are not decisions 'on the merits' and are not precedential, data reveals that 68% of shadow docket rulings with explanations and 50% without explanations are cited by lower courts. This creates bad law, as lower court judges, fearing reversal, rely on vague guidance from these orders, undermining proper jurisprudence.

A data set compiled over 24 years, covering 475 substantive emergency applications, shows that 68% of shadow docket rulings with some explanation received at least one citation, and 50% of those without any explanation were cited. Justice Alito publicly stated in 2021 that these rulings were not meant to be cited, yet lower courts are chastised for not following them.