Allen v. Milligan

Summary

Chief Justice Roberts's opinion affirmed both preliminary injunctions, holding that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that Alabama's congressional map violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act under Thornburg v. Gingles. The Court rejected Alabama's proposed race-neutral benchmark, reaffirmed § 2's application to single-member districts, and rejected the State's constitutional objections. Justice Kavanaugh joined all but Part III–B–1 and separately emphasized statutory stare decisis, the constraints imposed by traditional districting criteria, and the distinction between discriminatory effects and intent; he reserved an unpresented argument about temporal limits on race-based remedies. Part III–B–1, addressing racial consciousness and predominance in plaintiffs' illustrative maps, received only four votes. Justice Thomas dissented, joined by Justice Gorsuch throughout, Justice Barrett in Parts II and III, and Justice Alito in Parts II–A and II–B; he argued that § 2 does not reach districting, alternatively requires a race-neutral benchmark, and would be unconstitutional as applied under the majority's approach. Justice Alito, joined by Justice Gorsuch, separately dissented and would have vacated and remanded for application of a first Gingles precondition requiring plaintiffs to establish that race did not predominate in drawing their illustrative districts.