Allen v. Milligan
599 U.S. 1 (2023)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish a vote dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, plaintiffs must satisfy the preconditions of the framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles. A state's electoral map violates § 2 if it interacts with social and historical conditions to deny a geographically compact and politically cohesive minority group an equal opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, and this analysis does not require comparing the state's map to a computer-generated 'race-neutral' benchmark.
Facts:
- Following the 1990 census, litigation under the Voting Rights Act resulted in the creation of Alabama's first majority-black congressional district, and subsequent maps, including the one enacted in 2011, maintained this single district.
- The 2020 decennial census revealed that Alabama's population had grown and shifted, and that black citizens constituted approximately 27% of the state's population.
- The Alabama Legislature's Committee on Reapportionment directed its long-time mapmaker, Randy Hinaman, to draw a new congressional map for the next decade.
- Hinaman used the 2011 congressional map as a starting point and made adjustments to comply with legislative guidelines, such as population equality, while preserving the cores of existing districts.
- The resulting map, enacted as HB1, largely resembled the 2011 map and again contained seven congressional districts, only one of which (District 7) had a majority-black voting-age population.
- On November 4, 2021, Alabama Governor Kay Ivey signed HB1 into law.
- The plaintiffs' expert witnesses presented alternative maps showing it was possible to create a second, compact majority-black district by uniting the Black Belt, a recognized community of interest with a high proportion of black voters and a shared history.
Procedural Posture:
- Three groups of plaintiffs filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama challenging Alabama's newly enacted congressional map, HB1, as a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution.
- Two of the cases (Milligan and Singleton) were consolidated for a preliminary injunction hearing before a special three-judge District Court.
- Following an extensive evidentiary hearing, the three-judge District Court concluded that the plaintiffs were reasonably likely to succeed on their Section 2 claim.
- The District Court issued a preliminary injunction, blocking Alabama from using the HB1 map in the upcoming 2022 elections.
- Alabama filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking a stay of the District Court's injunction.
- The Supreme Court granted the stay, allowing the 2022 election to proceed using the HB1 map, and granted certiorari before judgment to decide the merits of the case.
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 Alabama's 2021 congressional districting plan (HB1), which contains only one majority-black district in a state with a significant black population, likely violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting strength of black citizens?
Opinions:
Majority - Roberts, C.J.
Yes, Alabama's plan likely violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The District Court faithfully applied the Court's longstanding precedent from Thornburg v. Gingles to find that plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their vote dilution claim. Plaintiffs satisfied the three Gingles preconditions: first, by presenting multiple illustrative maps showing that a second, reasonably configured majority-black district could be drawn that complied with traditional districting principles like compactness; second and third, by showing undisputed evidence of politically cohesive black voters and racially polarized voting where the white majority bloc consistently defeats the minority's preferred candidates. Under the totality of the circumstances, Alabama's history of racial discrimination and the stark racial polarization in its elections demonstrate that the political process is not equally open to black voters. The Court rejects Alabama's novel 'race-neutral benchmark' theory, which would require comparing a state's map to computer-generated alternatives, as it is inconsistent with § 2's effects-based text, is practically unworkable, and would wrongly reintroduce an intent-like standard. The Court also reaffirms through statutory stare decisis that § 2 applies to challenges of single-member districts and is a constitutional exercise of Congress's enforcement power.
Concurring - Kavanaugh, J.
Yes, the plan violates Section 2 as interpreted by Gingles. The principle of statutory stare decisis is strong, and Congress has not disturbed the Gingles framework in 37 years, counseling against overruling it. Gingles does not mandate racial proportionality; its requirements for geographic compactness and reasonable configuration prevent that outcome. Because Section 2 establishes an effects test, not an intent test, Alabama's proposed reliance on race-blind computer simulations—which might be relevant to intent—is misplaced. Finally, Alabama's argument that § 2 as applied is unconstitutional is unpersuasive under existing precedent like City of Rome.
Dissenting - Thomas, J.
No, Alabama's plan does not violate Section 2. First, § 2's text does not apply to districting plans at all, but only to rules governing ballot access. Even if it did apply, any vote-dilution claim must be measured against a race-neutral benchmark, not the benchmark of racial proportionality that the plaintiffs seek and the District Court applied. The plaintiffs’ own illustrative maps are unconstitutional racial gerrymanders, as race was the predominant factor in their creation, designed with the 'nonnegotiable' goal of creating two majority-black districts. If § 2 does require what the majority holds, then it is an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power because it is not a congruent and proportional remedy to any constitutional violation, instead creating a substantive, race-based entitlement to political power.
Dissenting - Alito, J.
No, the lower court's decision should be vacated because it applied a flawed understanding of Gingles. The first Gingles precondition, requiring a 'reasonably configured' district, must be interpreted to mean a district that can be drawn without race being the 'predominant factor.' This interpretation is necessary to avoid a conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution. The District Court erred by accepting illustrative maps that were admittedly created with the 'non-negotiable' goal of being majority-black, which is the definition of racial predominance. The evidence strongly suggests that a second majority-black district cannot be created in Alabama without making race the predominant factor, and the case should be remanded for the lower court to apply the correct standard.
Analysis:
This decision serves as a powerful reaffirmation of the nearly 40-year-old Gingles framework for adjudicating Section 2 vote dilution claims. By rejecting Alabama's proposed 'race-neutral benchmark' test, the Court prevented a radical shift in voting rights law that would have made such claims significantly more difficult and expensive to prove. The ruling solidifies the 'effects test' at the heart of § 2 and signals the Court's respect for statutory stare decisis in this contentious area. This precedent ensures that courts will continue to conduct a 'searching practical evaluation' of local historical and social conditions, rather than relying on abstract computer simulations, to determine if a state's political processes are 'equally open' to minority voters.
