Why do Thomas and Gorsuch sometimes strike down racial gerrymanders?

[Greedo punched first]

Thomas did it in Cooper v. Harris in NC. In the recent VA case, Thomas and Gorsuch did it. Why do they sometimes strike down racial gerrymanders, unlike the other conservatives?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

In the Virginia case what was being ruled on wasn't the map itself, but whether the House of Delegates had standing to file suit to defend it after the Virginia Attorney General refused. Thomas and Gorsuch didn't rule against the map itself, but that the HoD lacked standing. Had the jurisdiction issue not been in play, it's possible they would've upheld the map.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Thomas and Gorsuch are generally less deferential in their philosophy than Roberts, Alito and Kavanaugh.   And Thomas in particular is strongly opposed to classification of people by race in most contexts.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Thomas in particular is strongly opposed to classification of people by race in most contexts.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

As long as soft money and guns arent regulated, which Kavanagh replaced Kennedy, as swing vote, the CRT, stays out of gerrymandering, and that's what it is doing.

Hopefully, if PR statehood comes before CRT, Roberts okays it. Not DC, it's a district.