
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or


Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.
By Bloomberg Law3.9
155155 ratings
Fresh off last term’s win in an Alabama redistricting case, civil rights groups returned to the Supreme Court to argue that voting maps drawn by South Carolina Republicans disenfranchise Black voters and should be redrawn.
But arguments in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference on Oct. 11 seemed to favor the GOP-led legislature despite a deferential standard that limits the justices’ ability to second guess a lower court ruling siding with the challengers.
Holtzman Vogel partner Jason Torchinsky, who filed an amicus brief on the GOP side, joins the latest episode of Cases and Controversies to discuss the case that could help determine which party controls the US House after next year‘s election.
Do you have feedback on this episode of Cases & Controversies? Give us a call and leave a voicemail at 703-341-3690.

4,218 Listeners

4,413 Listeners

383 Listeners

33 Listeners

6,308 Listeners

113,483 Listeners

56,981 Listeners

112 Listeners

173 Listeners

6,110 Listeners

745 Listeners