That gets the story backwards, though, missing what the case was really about.
The state and its challengers agreed that the map was NOT gerrymandered, and that was the problem. The challengers said that the map needed to BE gerrymandered to comply with the VRA and previous court rulings.
The state proposed race-neutral maps, and the Court said no, race must be taken into account as per the law.
The question before the court was whether it's right to ignore race.
@volkris so the grist then is that they chose to acknowledge it.