Abbott v. Perez
138 S.Ct. 2305, 2018 U.S. LEXIS 3846, 201 L. Ed. 2d 714 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A state legislature is presumed to have acted in good faith when enacting a redistricting plan, and the burden of proving discriminatory intent remains with the challenger. A legislature that adopts a court-drawn interim plan is not required to prove it has 'cured' the alleged discriminatory taint of a prior, defunct legislative plan created by a previous legislature.
Facts:
- Following the 2010 census, which apportioned Texas four additional seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, the Texas Legislature enacted new congressional and state legislative redistricting plans in 2011.
- Multiple plaintiff groups, led by Shannon Perez, immediately challenged the 2011 plans in federal court, alleging racial gerrymandering and vote dilution.
- Due to ongoing litigation and a denial of preclearance under the Voting Rights Act, the 2011 plans were never used in any election.
- A three-judge federal court, under instructions from the Supreme Court in a prior ruling, developed interim plans that were used for the 2012 elections.
- In 2013, the Texas Legislature formally repealed the 2011 plans and enacted the court-drawn interim plans as the state's new, permanent districting maps.
- Texas used these 2013 plans, which were substantially the same as the court's interim plans, to conduct its 2014 and 2016 elections.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff groups, including those represented by Shannon Perez, sued Texas in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas (a three-judge court), challenging the 2011 redistricting plans.
- The Texas court drew interim plans for the 2012 elections after the U.S. Supreme Court, in Perry v. Perez, instructed it to give deference to the Legislature's 2011 plans where legally possible.
- After Texas officially enacted the court's interim plans in 2013, plaintiffs amended their complaints to challenge these new plans.
- The District Court held multi-day trials and first issued a ruling finding that the now-defunct 2011 plans had been enacted with discriminatory intent.
- Subsequently, the District Court invalidated several districts in the 2013 plans, concluding the 2013 Legislature had failed to 'cure the taint' of the 2011 plans.
- The District Court's orders stated that the violations 'must be remedied' and scheduled hearings to consider new maps, effectively preventing use of the 2013 plans.
- Texas, as appellant, filed a direct appeal of the District Court's orders to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Perez, et al., as appellees.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state legislature that enacts a court-drawn interim redistricting plan bear the burden of proving it 'cured' the discriminatory taint of a prior, repealed plan, or does the challenger retain the burden of proving the legislature acted with current discriminatory intent?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Alito
No, the challenger retains the burden of proving the legislature acted with current discriminatory intent. A legislature is presumed to act in good faith, and this presumption is not altered by a finding of past discrimination by a predecessor legislature. The District Court committed a fundamental legal error by reversing the burden of proof and requiring Texas to show that the 2013 Legislature 'cured' the 'taint' of the never-used 2011 plans. The 2013 Legislature's decision to enact plans drawn by a federal court is strong evidence of a legitimate, non-discriminatory intent to end protracted litigation. When reviewed under the proper standard, the evidence was insufficient to prove that the 2013 Legislature acted with discriminatory intent, and the §2 effects claims also fail because plaintiffs did not prove vote dilution. The Court affirmed only the finding that one district, HD90, was an impermissible racial gerryrymander because the state failed to show its use of race was narrowly tailored.
Concurring - Justice Thomas
No. While joining the majority opinion in full because it correctly applies the Court's precedents, the concurrence reiterates the view that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 does not apply to redistricting cases. Therefore, Section 2 cannot serve as a valid basis for either invalidating a district or justifying a racial gerrymander.
Dissenting - Justice Sotomayor
Yes. The dissenting opinion argues the Court should not have exercised jurisdiction because the lower court's orders were not appealable injunctions under 28 U.S.C. §1253. On the merits, the dissent contends that the District Court did not improperly shift the burden of proof but correctly applied the Arlington Heights factors to find intentional discrimination. The dissent argues that the 2013 Legislature's adoption of the court plans was a pretextual 'litigation strategy' to perpetuate the discrimination of the 2011 maps. The majority, by reversing, ignores the clear-error standard of review for factual findings and wrongly substitutes its own view of the evidence, allowing Texas to use maps found to be intentionally discriminatory.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the high bar for proving intentional discrimination in redistricting cases by strengthening the presumption of legislative good faith. It establishes that a legislature's adoption of a court-drawn plan serves as powerful evidence against a claim of discriminatory intent, effectively insulating the state from challenges based on the 'taint' of prior, repealed plans. The ruling makes it significantly more difficult for challengers to carry forward findings of discriminatory purpose from one legislative body to another, particularly when a judicial body has intervened in the map-drawing process. This precedent will likely reduce the success of future claims that rely on the discriminatory history of a jurisdiction to prove current intent.
Unlock the full brief for Abbott v. Perez