The oral argument is one hour and 45 minutes. Chief Justice Roberts we wl hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcher thank you. The government may not use corso threat to suppre sech but it is entitled the speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizinprate speakers. This case should be about the fundamental distinction between persuaonnd coercion. This is not a typical student where a speaker challees Government Actions affecting its n eech. Two states and five individus are trying to use this to with and about social media platforms. Th pblem has infected every part of the case. Respondents dont have standing because they have not owan imminent threat that the government will cause the platform to monitor your post in paicular. A lowercase viewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The courts entered a universal injunction restricting speech about any content. Enpart from the art
Chief Justice Roberts we will hear argument first this morning, case 23411, murthy v. Missouri. Mr. Fletcher. Mr. Fletcherthk you. The government may not use corso threat to suppress speech but it is entlethe speed for itself i informing, persuading or criticizing private speakers. Th ce should be about the fundamental distinction betwee persuasion and coercion. This is not a typical udt where a speaker challenges Government Actions affecti i own speech. Two states and five individuals are trying to use iso with and about social media platforms. That problem has infected every part of thca. Respondents dont have standing because they have not shown an imminent thrt at the government will cause the platrmo monitor your post in particular. A loweasviewed a vast range of speech without asking whether it had anything to do with responses. The ur entered a universal innction restricting speech about any content. Even apart from the article three problem, that injunction rests on two errors.
Centers about two district in South Carolina that were divided by the republicancoroed legislature. The South Carolina state conferen o the naacp filed suit allegg the changes in the voting districts alludedo voting power of thousands of black voters. A lower court agreed and an appeal to the nations highest court followed. The justices have through june of 2242 ensure rolling. Mr. Ge. Mr. Chief justice, may it please the court. Strict one is not a racial gerrander. Rather the General Assembly larger preserve district one from t constitution benchmark plan and make changes based on traditional criteria and politics. The panel acknowledged that you assume he pursued a political goal of increasing district ones republican vote share. It achieve that goal by moving republicans into the district and democrats out of the district. All of the direct evidence conference that it used political dat not racial data to identifybl republicans and democrats. The panel declared this to point a racia
All the directvidence confirms it used polical data, not racial data to identify republicans and democrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopting an erroneous racia policy theory. First they failed to enforce th alternative map required. In a case like this oy such an ternative. Second it hyper entangled rac and politics and makes no sense. Thean believe they needed a raci target in Charleston County to achieve its political goal nationwide because 17 racial tge says nothing about vor turnout, says nothing whatsoever about the prodominant majority votes for the predominantly white Charleston County and i irreconcilable th district ones recent history. Moreover the panel agreeing the General Assembly made 34reu8 changes oer parts of district one without using a racial target. E yen assembly has had no reason to and did n use a racial target. Used political day to da to pursue its political goals. If left uncorrected this wl undermine the Courts Holding th
Cspans campaign 2024 coverage, watch as we follow candidates othcampaign trail. Just and all. Campgn 2024, span now, our free mil video app, anytime online. Cspan, your unfiltered view of politics. The u. Ssupreme court heard oral argument a case on Congressional Redistricting and gerrymandering. It centers around two distris divided by the public legislator. There was a suit filed alleging changes devoting the voting power of thousands of black voters. There was an appeal and it went to the higst. There is until june for a ruli. To identify republicans and democrats. The panel declared district one a racial gerrymander only by adopting an erronacial policy theory. First they failed to foe the alternative map required. In a case lis only sh an alternative. Second it hyper entangled race and politics and makes no s the panel believe they needed a racial target in Charleston County to achieve itsical goal nationwide because 17 voter turnout, says nothingt whatsoever about t prodominant m