This is beyond a reasonable doubt with your hosts, Mark Garrigas and Gary Smith.

I could not be more thrilled than to have my friend ex-co-counsel, now currently, head of, what's you, what's your official title?

I'm the assistant.

I'm the assistant attorney general for civil rights at the United States Department of Justice.

And your name is Harmy Dillon.

And you're coming off quite a week, aren't you, Harmy?

It's been a big week at the DOJ in my division, but on election law issues, but a few other issues as well. Yeah, it's been pretty busy.

Well, let's start. I thought of you yesterday because I saw the Supreme Court ruled six to three, right, in the Texas case, reverse, well, no, affirming the two to one decision

reversing it.

Reversing the two to one decision out of the fifth circuit. I'm sorry.

Not the fifth circuit. So in, in my God. I'm sorry. Not the Fifth Circuit. So in redistricting cases. I have,

I have so screwed up the appellate history. I'll let you say it then. Okay, so redistricting cases

are unusual, unlike the work that we usually do where we go to the district court and then you

appeal it to the Court of Appeals and then you go to the Supreme Court and then you appeal it to the court of appeals

and then you go to the Supreme Court and they may hear it. There's only two levels of review

in every redistricting case. So anytime there's a case involving a challenge to a map drawn by a state,

it goes before a three-judge panel, which is a very rare proceeding. And that was in the, I believe, Western District of Texas,

a three-judge panel heard this challenge to Texas's legislative redistricting mid-decade. And then

that gets appealed directly to the Supreme Court. So the Fifth Circuit actually doesn't have a direct statement solo.

Although one of the judges on the three-judge panel was a Fifth Circuit judge, Judge Jerry Smith.

Right.

And so it was two to one out of that three-judge panel, even though it was two-district one circuit, correct?

...