us-supreme-court politics
What case was it where Clarence Thomas sided with the liberal justices in order to remain consistent with a previous ruling?
<p>I have a memory of a case but I can't seem to find it.</p>

<p>What I remember is that there was a case in which the court split along partisan lines. Then, a few years later, a similar case came before the court except that the decision from the previous case, if consistently applied, would now result in the opposite party benefiting. All the justices flip-flopped except for Clarence Thomas, with the result being that the liberals "won".</p>

<p>Does anyone know what (two) case(s) I'm talking about?</p>

<p>I found the case in an <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/amicus/2017/05/racial_gerrymandering_struck_down_and_doj_threatens_immigrant_rights_lawyers.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">episode of Amicus</a> (podcast).</p>

<p>Mark Joseph Stern was on the show and Dahlia Lithwick referred <a href="http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/in_cooper_v_harris_the_supreme_court_strikes_a_blow_against_racial_redistricting.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">to an article</a> he had written about the subject. Here is a quote from the article:</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In the 1990s, Thomas disapproved of race-conscious redistricting designed to empower black Democrats; today, he objects to race-conscious redistricting designed to empower white Republicans. </p>
</blockquote>

<p>In the 1990s, all the conservative justices voted to not allow taking race in to account to create solidly black districts. All the liberals said that it would be ok. Now (in <em>Cooper v. Harris</em>) all the liberals are saying it is not ok to take race in to account when destroying Democratic districts through gerrymandering and the all the conservatives said it would be ok, save Clarence Thomas, who remained consistent with the previous ruling, giving the liberal justices a victory.</p>
