-1- 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

COLUMBIA DIVISION 

The South Carolina State Conference of the ) 

NAACP, and Taiwan Scott, on behalf of )

himself and all other similarly situated )

persons, ) C/A No.: 3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG 

 ) 

Plaintiffs, ) 

 ) 

v. ) 

 ) 

Thomas C. Alexander, in his official ) 

capacity as President of the Senate; Luke A. ) 

Rankin, in his official capacity as Chairman )

of the Senate Judiciary Committee; ) 

G. Murrell Smith, Jr. in his official capacity ) ORDER 

as Speaker of the House of Representatives; ) 

Chris Murphy, in his official capacity as ) 

Chairman of the House of Representatives ) 

Judiciary Committee; Wallace H. Jordan, in ) 

his official capacity as Chairman of the ) 

House of Representatives Elections Law ) 

Subcommittee; Howard Knapp, in his ) 

official capacity as interim Executive ) 

Director of the South Carolina State ) 

Election Commission; John Wells, Chair, ) 

JoAnne Day, Clifford J. Elder, Linda ) 

McCall, and Scott Moseley, in their ) 

official capacities as members of the South ) 

Carolina State Election Commission, ) 

 ) 

Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

 This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion to stay the Order of January 6, 

2023 pending completion of the appellate process. (Dkt. No. 495). Plaintiffs oppose the motion. 

(Dkt. No. 500). For reasons set forth below, the motion for a stay is denied. The Court further 

addresses a change in circumstances resulting from the Defendants’ submission of a Notice of 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 1 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 1 of 6
-2- 

Intent to File an Appeal, which necessitates a change in the date for the legislature to submit a 

proposed remedial plan to the Court. 

I. Addressing a Change in Circumstances Resulting from Defendants’ Notice 

of Intent to File an Appeal 

By way of background, the Court issued its Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law on 

January 6, 2023, which concluded that Congressional District No. 1 constituted an unconstitutional 

racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment 

because race was the predominant factor in the adoption of the district’s reapportionment plan. 

(Dkt. No. 493). It is well established that upon the finding by a federal court that a challenged 

legislative district is unconstitutional, the legislature should be given a reasonable opportunity to 

recommend for consideration a remedial plan that meets constitutional standards. Wise v. 

Lipscomb, 437 U.S. 535, 540 (1978). To that end, the Court provided the legislature the 

opportunity to submit a remedial plan to the Court by March 31, 2023. (Dkt. No. 493 at 30). The 

Court intended thereafter to allow the parties to comment upon the legislature’s proposed remedial 

plan, produce evidence in support of their respective positions, offer other plans if they desired, 

and conduct an evidentiary hearing and oral argument, as necessary, prior to the adoption of a 

remedial plan for Congressional District No. 1. 

Defendants advised the Court on January 27, 2023 of their intention to file an appeal and 

requested a stay of the Court’s January 6, 2023 order. (Dkt. No. 495). The filing of an appeal in 

this case necessarily alters the Court’s schedule for consideration and adoption of a remedial plan. 

In short, the Court has no intention to proceed with consideration and adoption of a remedial plan 

during the pendency of any appeal before the United States Supreme Court. In light of the notice 

of Defendants of their intention to file an appeal, the Court hereby alters the date the legislature 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 2 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 2 of 6
-3- 

may submit a remedial plan for Congressional District No. 1 to the Court from March 31, 2023 

until 30 days after a final decision of the United States Supreme Court.1

II. Defendants’ Motion to Stay Does Not Meet the Well Established Standards 

for the Grant of a Stay Pending Appeal 

A motion to stay an order of the lower court pending appeal to the United States Supreme 

Court requires consideration of the following factors: (1) whether the applicant for the stay has 

made a strong showing that it is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be 

irreparably injured absent the entry of a stay; (3) whether the issuance of a stay will injure other 

parties to the litigation; and (4) where the public interest lies. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 434 

(2009). The Court finds that Defendants do not meet the standards for the grant of a stay in this 

matter. 

A. Defendants have not shown a strong likelihood of success on the merits. 

The Court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law are based upon a careful examination 

of the voluminous evidence offered at trial, an assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, and 

an application of the consistent body of Supreme Court caselaw extending from Shaw v. Reno, 509 

U.S. 630 (1993) and Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (1995) to the more recent cases of Alabama

Legislative Black Causes v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (2015) and Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 

(2017). Based upon the Defendants’ Motion for a Stay, it appears Defendants disagree with the 

Court’s factual findings, credibility determinations, and application of legal standards. Defendants 

1

 The filing of an appeal normally transfers jurisdiction of all matters relating to the appeal from 

the district court to the appellate court. Under the present circumstances, no appeal has yet to be 

filed with the United States Supreme Court, only a notice of intent to file an appeal. Further, even 

if an appeal had been filed, the trial court retains jurisdiction to address matters in aid of the appeal. 

See Grand Jury Proceedings Under Seal v. United States, 947 F.2d 1188, 1190 (4th Cir. 1991). 

The Court finds that its change in its schedule to consider and adopt a remedial plan for 

Congressional District No. 1 occasioned by the filing of an appeal is in aid of the appeal. 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 3 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 3 of 6
-4- 

also appear to be arguing against precedent rather than relying upon existing Supreme Court 

authority.2 Having reviewed Defendants’ arguments regarding alleged deficiencies and errors in 

the Order in this matter, the Court finds that Defendants have not made a strong showing of a 

likelihood of success on the merits. 

B. Defendants have not shown they will suffer irreparable injury from 

the denial of a stay. 

It is important at the outset to clarify what the Court’s order actually requires of the parties 

because it differs markedly from the factual scenario Defendants have set forth in their effort to 

demonstrate irreparable injury from the denial of a stay. After finding that the reapportionment 

plan for Congressional District No. 1 constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, the Court 

enjoined Defendants from conducting any future election in Congressional District No. 1 until a 

constitutionally compliant plan was adopted. (Dkt. No. 493 at 31). This followed the longstanding 

practice since Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 585 (1964), that where a “legislative apportionment 

scheme has been found to be unconstitutional, it would be the unusual case in which a court would 

be justified in not taking appropriate action to insure no further elections are conducted under an 

invalid plan.” The next scheduled general election in Congressional District No. 1 is in November 

2

 One example of this is Defendants’ lead argument in their motion for a stay that the Court 

“disregarded the alternative-map requirement.” (Dkt. No. 495 at 3). The Supreme Court held in 

Cooper v. Harris, a 2017 decision, that there was not a mandatory alternative map requirement to 

prove a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. 581 U.S. 285, 319-20 (2017). In this case, the 

Court ruled with Plaintiffs regarding Congressional District No. 1 and with Defendants regarding 

Congressional District Nos. 2 and 5. Plaintiffs’ remedial plans reflected their position that all three 

congressional districts were unconstitutional and did not address the scenario where only 

Congressional District No. 1 was found to be unconstitutional. After carefully reviewing the 

various maps under consideration, the demography of the State, and the ease with which legislative 

districts can now be drawn with computer driven software, the Court found “that a constitutionally 

compliant plan for Congressional District No. 1 can be designed without undue difficulty, and it 

was thus not necessary for Plaintiffs to present an acceptable alternative map to prevail on their 

claims.” (Dkt. No. 493 at 30). Defendants’ motion for a stay argues to the contrary and against 

the Supreme Court’s holding in Cooper. 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 4 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 4 of 6
-5- 

2024, and party primaries in South Carolina are normally conducted during the summer before the 

next general election. In short, there is no election scheduled in Congressional District No. 1, or 

any other South Carolina congressional district, for more than a year. 

 Defendants argue, however, that the Court planned to adopt a remedial plan during the 

pendency of the appeal and to potentially schedule a special election before a Supreme Court 

decision. (Dkt. No. 495 at 25). The Court never contemplated such a series of events, and no 

order of this Court provided such a plan. When the Court issued its order in early January 2023, 

it anticipated an orderly process to adopt a remedial plan. As stated above, once Defendants 

advised the Court of their intent to appeal, the Court delayed the first step of that process, the 

receipt of any remedial plan proposed by the legislature, until 30 days after the Supreme Court’s 

final decision. 

 Defendants have not addressed in their motion for a stay any irreparable injury they might 

suffer from the Court’s injunction against conducting an election in Congressional District No. 1 

under the now declared unconstitutional plan. The Court finds that Defendants have not shown 

that they will suffer any irreparable injury from the denial of a stay in this case. 

C. Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable injury by the grant of a stay. 

A grant of a stay would lift the Court’s injunction against conducting an election in 

Congressional District No. 1 until a constitutionally compliant reapportionment plan has been 

adopted. The Court has every hope and expectation that the appeal process can be completed and 

a remedial plan adopted before the 2024 primary and general elections. However, on the outside 

chance the process is not completed in time for the 2024 primary and general election schedule, 

the election for Congressional District No. 1 should not be conducted until a remedial plan is in 

place. This is based on the well-established principle that where fundamental voting rights have 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 5 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 5 of 6
-6- 

been violated, plaintiffs suffer irreparable injury until the constitutional deprivation has been 

removed. See League of Women Voters of North Carolina v. North Carolina, 769 F.3d 224, 247 

(4th Cir. 2014). The Court finds that Plaintiffs could suffer irreparable injury if a stay was granted 

in this case. 

D. The Public Interest Lies in the Denial of a Stay. 

The public interest lies in upholding fundamental voting rights. Id. at 247-48; Obama for 

America v. Husted, 697 F.3d 423, 436-37 (6h Cir. 2012). The grant of a stay under these 

circumstances is plainly not in the public interest.

Conclusion 

 The Defendants’ motion for a stay (Dkt. No. 495) is DENIED. The Court has altered the 

date for the legislature to submit a remedial plan to the Court until 30 days after a final decision in 

this matter of the United States Supreme Court.

AND IT IS SO ORDERED. 

 

_s/ Mary Geiger Lewis 

Mary Geiger Lewis 

United States District Judge 

s/ Toby J. Heytens 

Toby J. Heytens 

United States Circuit Judge 

s/ Richard Mark Gergel

Richard M. Gergel 

United States District Judge 

 

February 4, 2023 

Charleston, South Carolina 

3:21-cv-03302-MGL-TJH-RMG Date Filed 02/04/23 Entry Number 501 Page 6 of 6

Case 1:22-cv-24066-KMM Document 90 Entered on FLSD Docket 07/17/2023 Page 6 of 6