op opposite, but we had four hung together as they almost always did and one of the conservatives came over. those case may not have the significance of partisan gerrymandering. but the census case. it might well but who knows in the end what will happen with the census. it s a narrow decision. overall you would say there were a lot of surprises, particularly with the new justice, justice gorsuch relatively new being willing to come over with the left more often. and voting against justice kavanaugh and gorsuch voted against each other in different sides of indicates in about half of the cases that were not unanimous. the two trump appointees were not in lockstep here, craig. thank you so much. i want to bring in neil for a second here. neil, let s start with the census question. what stands out to you most about the high court s decision on the census question? well, i think as usual, pete really outlines the issues beautifully. and i disagree a little bit with
practice. the other case we were waiting for today involved the jurisdiction of indian tribes over a vast amount of land in oklahoma. the court has ordered that case reargued for next term, craig. on the dui case, what was the breakdown on the court? the dui case was 5-4 i think? yes, it was 5-3 with one member of the court, justice co gorsuch saying i wouldn t decide this. i thought it was a whole different case. so justice breyer joins the conservatives and so they do have five votes. i would say one of the things, i wonder if you agree with me, tom, that s kind of surprising about this term. yes, the partisan gerrymandering cases were foif-4 dividing among the familiar ideological minds with all the justices appointed by republican presidents voting one way and the ones appointed by democratic presidents voted the other way but that has not happened very often. it didn t happen as much as we saw the opposite, or not the