Attorney General Steve Marshall on Thursday praised the U.S. Supreme Court's decision. To support South Carolina's congressional redistricting plan is surviving a constitutional challenge, after a federal court ruled last year that the South Carolina Legislature drew racially unfair congressional district maps for 2021.

In 2023, Alabama faced a legal battle over its own reapportionment plan, which resulted in a federally appointed special master redrawing the racial makeup of its districts now heading into the 2024 elections.

Marshall sided with South Carolina, writing in a Supreme Court brief that noted that all parties agreed that the Republican-controlled South Carolina Legislature had partisan goals and partisan data to pursue them. The brief argued that the district court clearly erred in presuming that the state Legislature acted in bad faith by drawing district lines based on race, not party.

The Supreme Court agreed with this argument in its ruling.

“The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that redistricting is difficult and solely a state responsibility,” said Attorney General Marshall.

“Federal courts should not assume that Republican lawmakers are up to no good when they adopt redistricting plans that don't cede political power to Democrats. To do so would be to invite partisans, in the words of today's ruling, 'to turn the federal courts into weapons of political warfare, seeking to win victories that could not be won in the political arena.'”

“The Supreme Court's decision should help reduce these baseless and divisive accusations.”

Marshall's brief specifically argued that the federal court was clearly wrong to presume that Congress acted in bad faith in drawing district lines based on race rather than political party.

Fifteen state attorneys general joined Marshall's brief, siding with South Carolina.

Austin Shipley is a staff writer for Yellow Hammer News. You can follow him on X. @Shipley Austin