The most controversial case, by far, will be the racial gerrymandering case, Alabama Black Legislative Caucus v. Alabama. Part IV of the opinion deals with when race is the "predominant motivating factor," an issue that comes up in Batson cases. Not sure if there will be any spillover.
In dissent, the ever-entertaining Justice Scalia takes aim at the way the majority bends over backwards to allow the plaintiffs to change their theory of the case after they were losing.
However, rather than holding appellants to the misguided legal theory they presented to the District Court, it allows them to take a mulligan, remanding the case with orders that the District Court consider whether some (all?) of Alabama's 35 majority-minority districts result from impermissible racial gerrymandering.... It does this on the basis of a few stray comments, cherry-picked from district-court filings that are more Rorschach brief than Brandeis brief, in which the vague outline of what could be district-specific racial-gerrymandering claims begins to take shape only with the careful, post-hoc nudging of appellate counsel.Well, I know how I'm going to title my next pleading: "Rorschach Brief in Support of Motion for Leave to Take a Mulligan."