## Facts

- After the 2020 census, Alabama retained seven U.S. House seats and enacted a 2021 congressional map with one majority-Black district, consistent with Alabama maps since the early 1990s.
- Black Alabamians comprised about 27% of the state population.
- Black voters and civil rights organizations challenged the map under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, alleging unlawful dilution of Black voting strength and seeking a second majority-Black (or near-majority-Black) opportunity district.
- A three-judge federal district court held an evidentiary hearing and relied on expert evidence and illustrative maps indicating two majority-Black districts could be drawn while meeting traditional districting criteria (e.g., compactness, contiguity, and respect for political subdivisions).
- The district court found plaintiffs had a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits under § 2, enjoined use of the 2021 map, and ordered Alabama to enact a remedial plan.
- The Supreme Court stayed the injunction for the 2022 election cycle, then heard the merits on direct appeal and affirmed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs showed a reasonable likelihood that Alabama’s 2021 congressional map violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength.
2. Whether the Court should narrow or revise § 2 vote-dilution doctrine (including the *Thornburg v. Gingles* framework) based on statutory interpretation and constitutional (Equal Protection) concerns.

## Decision

- The Court affirmed (5–4) the district court’s preliminary injunction.
- The Court held the district court correctly applied *Gingles* and § 2 precedent and that the plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success.
- The Court accepted the district court’s findings that (1) a second majority-Black district could be drawn consistent with traditional criteria, (2) Black voters were politically cohesive, and (3) white bloc voting usually defeated Black-preferred candidates.
- Under the “totality of circumstances,” the Court agreed that the record supported the conclusion that Black voters had less opportunity than other Alabamians to participate in the political process and elect candidates of choice.
- The Court rejected Alabama’s request to replace existing doctrine with a race-neutral benchmark tied to computer simulations or to treat § 2 remedies as unconstitutional racial predominance.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred in the judgment and most reasoning, while noting separate views about longer-term constitutional questions.
- Dissents argued § 2 should not be read to require race-conscious districting or to support what they characterized as proportional representation.

## Legal Principles

- A § 2 vote-dilution claim is evaluated under the *Gingles* preconditions:  
  - The minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact to form a majority in a reasonably configured district.  
  - The minority group is politically cohesive.  
  - The majority votes sufficiently as a bloc usually to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.
- If the *Gingles* preconditions are met, courts assess the “totality of circumstances” to determine whether minority voters have less opportunity than others to participate and elect representatives of their choice.
- § 2, as amended in 1982, applies an “effects” test, but does not create a right to proportional representation or election outcomes matching population share.
- Remedies for § 2 violations may require some race awareness, but remain bounded by statutory limits and traditional districting principles.

## Conclusion

The Court reaffirmed the existing § 2 vote-dilution framework and held that the record supported a reasonable likelihood that Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength, justifying an injunction requiring an additional Black-opportunity district.


Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023)