WWTBAM Bored

In the first of what's likely to be several gerrymander decisions to be decided by the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed a lower court decision that struck down the lines drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2010 for the House of Delegates (the lower House in Virginia) and substituted its own districts. These new lines will be in effect in this year's legislative elections. The decision was based on technical grounds rather than the merits of the case. After the lower court decision, the VA Attorney General (now a Democrat) declined to appeal. Instead, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates filed its own appeal in the case, but the Supreme Court said the House lacked standing to do so. The decision was an unusual 5-4, with Thomas and Gorsuch joining liberals Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority.

Also today, the Court by a 7-2 vote ruled that the Double Jeopardy clause does not prohibit federal and state prosecutions based on the same basic criminal acts. This could come into play if Trump pardons Paul Manafort or any other criminal defendant potentially facing state charges as well.

silverscreenselect wrote:In the first of what's likely to be several gerrymander decisions to be decided by the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed a lower court decision that struck down the lines drawn by the Republican-controlled legislature in 2010 for the House of Delegates (the lower House in Virginia) and substituted its own districts. These new lines will be in effect in this year's legislative elections. The decision was based on technical grounds rather than the merits of the case. After the lower court decision, the VA Attorney General (now a Democrat) declined to appeal. Instead, the Republican-controlled House of Delegates filed its own appeal in the case, but the Supreme Court said the House lacked standing to do so. The decision was an unusual 5-4, with Thomas and Gorsuch joining liberals Ginsburg, Kagan, and Sotomayor in the majority.

This bears emphasis. It was not a decision on the merits. The Supreme Court could easily reach a ruling in a later case that is not consistent with the trial court's ruling here (which would just mean that Virginia would have "won" if its Attorney General had decided to appeal, but he chose not to). --Bob