Thread by @chrisgeidner

Breaking: #SCOTUS blocks a lower court ruling that required Alabama to draw a new congressional map to prevent the dilution of Black people's votes under the Voting Rights Act. The vote was 5-4, with Roberts joining the more liberal justices in dissent. supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf…

Note that, as has been the case with Roberts before in these splits this past year, he does not necessarily join Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan on the substantive question. Here, he specifically questions the underlying voting rights precedent, but says that is the law now.

As I wrote last month at @gridnews, this is the Supreme Court now. (The "3-3-3 court" it ain't.) grid.news/story/politics…

Diving into the opinion, let's start with "the opinion." First, it's not an opinion. This is simply an order on a set of applications. This is the "shadow docket" (that Sam Alito doesn't like being called that b/c he says it's mean), and b/c of that, this is all ~the court~ said.

There is no rationale given by three of the five justices in the majority as to why they chose to take this action today that will change elections in Alabama this year and their representation in Congress after that. (That's Thomas, Gorsuch, and Barrett.)

Kavanaugh, joined by Alito, does write today, although it's basically to say that the dissent is wrong to say that the effects of the ruling are ... the effects of the ruling. This, like the Texas SB8 actions from SCOTUS and the 5th Circuit, use procedure to hide substance.

I find it particularly weird to see Kavanaugh/Alito invoke the Purcell principle this way when we're talking about congressional maps in the year of redistricting. When it's new maps being adopted, soon before elections, how can it apply in this way? (@rickhasen?)

While Kavanaugh strains to insist that their decision today is not a vote on the merits that the trial court's voting rights ruling is wrong, Roberts makes clear that his is not a vote on the merits that the underlying Supreme Court precedent itself is right.

Kagan, joined by Breyer and Sotomayor, in dissent: "Staying [the district court] decision forces Black Alabamians to suffer what under that law is clear vote dilution. With respect, I again dissent from a ruling that 'undermines Section 2 [of the VRA] and the right it provides.'"

Kagan drops a footnote (that she let carry over to a second page) to Kavanaugh.

Kagan discusses the substance of the vote dilution claims below since today's ruling means the trial on those issues will be ignored for the upcoming elections.

Part II of Kagan's dissent goes to the heart of the long-term consequences here: Did the majority today change the Voting Rights Act with no opinion? And how? (We don't know, of course, because the majority didn't write, and Kavanaugh/Alito insist it's not a merits decision.)

OK, yeah. Part III is Kagan talking about how absurd Kavanaugh's use of the Purcell principle here is. (She frames it as to Alabama's argument, presumably because his opinion isn't for the court, so she's ignoring it.)

And, finally, the dissenters' conclusion, which, in sum, is that the five-justice reactionary majority — pushing Roberts aside — is using the Supreme Court to undermine the Supreme Court, the district court, the Voting Rights Act, and Black Alabamians' electoral rights.

Today is the sort of day that I was writing about when I wrote my first piece for MSNBC last April: "Now Roberts may be losing control of his creation." msnbc.com/opinion/why-su…