Allen v. Milligan

Summary

The Court, per curiam, granted Alabama’s applications to stay the District Court’s injunction pending further review. It concluded that Alabama was likely to succeed against both the intentional-vote-dilution and statutory claims because the District Court failed to respect the presumption of legislative good faith and departed from Louisiana v. Callais in evaluating alternative maps and racially polarized voting. The Court also found irreparable harm and favorable equities, explaining that federal courts should not change election rules close to an election while States may choose last-minute changes themselves. Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson, dissented. She maintained that the District Court’s intentional-discrimination findings were supported by the record, that Callais did not change the governing constitutional standard, and that a stay would cause electoral disruption and reward Alabama’s defiance of court orders and inconsistent litigation positions.