## Facts

- After the 2020 census, Alabama adopted a congressional map with one majority-Black district out of seven; Black residents comprised about 27% of the state’s voting-age population.
- Black voters and organizations sued Alabama election officials, alleging the map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and asserting related constitutional claims.
- A three-judge federal district court held an evidentiary hearing with extensive lay and expert testimony and reviewed multiple illustrative maps proposed by plaintiffs.
- On January 24, 2022, the district court preliminarily enjoined use of Alabama’s map for the imminent election cycle and ordered Alabama to adopt a remedial plan that included a second majority-Black district (or something close to it) within weeks.
- Alabama sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court, arguing the district court misapplied § 2 and that last-minute redistricting would disrupt election administration before the primary.

## Issues

1. Whether the Supreme Court should stay the district court’s preliminary injunction pending appellate review.
2. Whether election-timing considerations, including the Purcell principle, favored leaving the existing map in place for the upcoming election cycle.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court, in an unsigned order, stayed the district court’s January 24, 2022 preliminary injunctions pending further order of the Court.
- The Court treated one stay application as a jurisdictional statement and noted probable jurisdiction, and treated the other as a petition for certiorari before judgment, which it granted.
- The stay left Alabama’s enacted congressional map in effect for the 2022 elections.
- Justice Kavanaugh concurred, emphasizing the order was not a merits decision and relying on election-timing concerns reflected in the Purcell line of cases.
- Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Breyer and Sotomayor, dissented, arguing the district court correctly applied existing § 2 precedent and that timing did not justify blocking relief; the Chief Justice dissented from the stay in part.

## Legal Principles

- A stay pending review is an interim remedy that preserves the status quo and does not resolve the underlying legality of the challenged law.
- Under the Purcell principle, federal courts generally should avoid altering election rules close to an election due to the risk of voter confusion and administrative disruption; appellate courts may stay injunctions that would require near-term changes.
- At the preliminary-injunction stage in a § 2 vote-dilution case, lower courts commonly apply the *Gingles* preconditions and consider the totality of circumstances; however, the stay order did not determine whether those standards were met.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court stayed a district court order requiring Alabama to redraw its congressional map on an expedited schedule, leaving the existing map in place for the imminent election and signaling that election-timing concerns can justify interim relief even when a lower court has found a likely § 2 violation.


Merrill v. Milligan, 142 S. Ct. 879 (2022)