Allen v. Milligan: Difference between revisions
Added wiki links Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Added additional information about the court’s ruling. Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
'''''Allen v. Milligan''''', 599 U. S. ___ (2023), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case related to redistricting under the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] (“VRA”). The appellees and respondants argued that [[Alabama's congressional districts]] discriminated against [[African Americans|African-American]] voters. The Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA |
'''''Allen v. Milligan''''', 599 U. S. ___ (2023), is a [[Supreme Court of the United States|United States Supreme Court]] case related to redistricting under the [[Voting Rights Act of 1965]] (“VRA”). The appellees and respondants argued that [[Alabama's congressional districts]] discriminated against [[African Americans|African-American]] voters. The Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required [[Alabama]] to create an additional [[Majority minority in the United States|majority-minority]] [[List of United States congressional districts|district]], and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context. |
||
== Background == |
== Background == |
||
Revision as of 09:21, 12 June 2023
| Allen v. Milligan | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 4, 2022 Decided June 8, 2023 | |
| Full case name | Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Evan Milligan, et al. Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. Marcus Caster, et al. |
| Docket nos. | 21-1086 21-1087 |
| Citations | 599 U.S. ___ (more) |
| Argument | Oral argument |
| Questions presented | |
| Whether the State of Alabama’s 2021 redistricting plan for its seven seats in the United States House of Representatives violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U.S.C. § 10301. | |
| Holding | |
| Plaintiffs demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that Alabama's redistricting plan violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama affirmed. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Roberts (except as to Part III–B–1), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Kavanaugh, Jackson |
| Plurality | Roberts (Part III–B–1), joined by Sotomayor, Kagan, Jackson |
| Concurrence | Kavanaugh (all but Part III–B–1) |
| Dissent | Thomas, joined by Gorsuch; Alito (Parts II–A and II–B); Barrett (Parts II and III) |
| Dissent | Alito, joined by Gorsuch |
| Laws applied | |
| Voting Rights Act of 1965 | |
Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. ___ (2023), is a United States Supreme Court case related to redistricting under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“VRA”). The appellees and respondants argued that Alabama's congressional districts discriminated against African-American voters. The Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s districts likely violated the VRA, maintained an injunction that required Alabama to create an additional majority-minority district, and held that Section 2 of the VRA is constitutional in the redistricting context.
Background
Alabama's congressional districts have had roughly the same configuration since 1993, with one majority-minority district out of its seven total districts. Data from the 2020 United States Census showed that while the state did not gain or lose any representation at the federal level, the racial diversity in the state had increased, with the portion of white residents having fallen from 68% to 64% over the prior ten years, while Alabama's Black population grew by 3.8 percent over the same period.[1][2]
In November 2021, the Alabama Legislature modified the existing districts to account for shifts in population. Soon after, multiple groups of plaintiffs sued, asserting the districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The plaintiffs sought the creation of an additional majority-minority district. Two suits (Singleton and Milligan) were assigned to a three-judge district court consisting of Judges Stanley Marcus, Terry F. Moorer, and Anna M. Manasco, and the third suit (Caster) was assigned to just Manasco. On January 24, 2022, the district courts in each of the cases enjoined the districts, holding they violated the VRA. The courts did not decide the constitutional issue, applying the doctrine of constitutional avoidance.[3] Alabama appealed the following day to the Supreme Court in Milligan and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit in Caster.[4]
Supreme Court
Initial injunction
The Supreme Court stayed the district court's injunctions in an order issued on February 7, 2022. The order stated that there was probable jurisdiction from the district court's order in Milligan, and granted certiorari before judgment in Caster. Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating "Today’s decision is one more in a disconcertingly long line of cases in which this Court uses its shadow docket to signal or make changes in the law, without anything approaching full briefing and argument."[5] Chief Justice John Roberts also wrote a dissent to the order to grant a stay, but agreed the Court should review the case.[5]
In response to Kagan's dissent, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurrence, joined by Justice Samuel Alito, stating that under Purcell v. Gonzalez, courts should not enjoin enforcement of election-related laws or regulations so close to the election.[4] Again in response, Kagan noted that Alabama "enacted the current map in less than a week and can move quickly again if it wants to", and that their "primary is still four months away, while the general election is nearly nine months away." By contrast, Purcell was decided only 15 days before the 2006 election.[4]
Oral Argument
Oral arguments were held on October 4, 2022, with Edmund LaCour defending Alabama, Deuel Ross of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund for the Milligan appellees, Abha Khanna of Elias Law Group for the Caster respondents, and the United States Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar as amicus curiae for the United States. [6]
Opinion of the Court
On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court affirmed the district court and held Alabama's map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the court, except for Part III-B-1; his opinion was joined in whole by Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, and in part by Justice Brett Kavanaugh.[7]
Dissents
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a dissent, joined fully by Justice Gorsuch and partially by Justice Alito and Justice Barrett. Thomas wrote that the decision would force "Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population. Section 2 demands no such thing, and, if it did, the Constitution would not permit it."[8] Justice Alito wrote a separate dissent joined fully by Justice Gorsuch.
Related cases
On June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari and a stay in the case Ardoin v. Robinson. This case involved Louisiana's congressional redistricting, where the legislature drew one majority-minority district out of six congressional districts despite Louisiana having a black population of 30%. The Supreme Court granted certiorari before judgment in this case but stated that it would hold the case in abeyance pending the decision in Milligan.[9] Following the Milligan decision, the ACLU and NAACP LDF filed a motion to lift the stay.
At the time of the decision, several other federal court cases across 10 states, including Georgia, South Carolina and Texas, argued against congressional, legislative and other district maps as violating Section 2. Stays were issued in several of these cases prior to the Milligan decision.[10]
References
- ^ "Census: Alabama More Diverse, a Few Counties Driving Growth". Associated Press. August 12, 2021. Retrieved February 8, 2022 – via U.S. News & World Report.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 28, 2022). "Supreme Court Revives Republican-Drawn Voting Map in Louisiana". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved October 11, 2022.
- ^ "Alabama's new congressional districts map blocked by federal judges". Associated Press. January 24, 2022. Retrieved February 8, 2022 – via NBC News.
- ^ a b c Howe, Amy (February 7, 2022). "In 5–4 vote, justices reinstate Alabama voting map despite lower court's ruling that it dilutes Black votes". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved February 7, 2022.
- ^ a b Benen, Steve (February 8, 2022). "Conservative justices rescue Alabama's racially discriminatory map". MSNBC. Retrieved February 8, 2022.
- ^ Howe, Amy (October 4, 2023). "Conservative justices seem poised to uphold Alabama's redistricting plan in Voting Rights Act challenge". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
- ^ Liptak, Adam (June 8, 2023). "Supreme Court Rejects Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters' Power". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 8, 2023.
- ^ https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-redistricting-race-voting-rights-alabama-af0d789ec7498625d344c0a4327367fe
- ^ "Robinson v. Ardoin". The American Redistricting Project. June 28, 2022. Retrieved June 29, 2022.
- ^ "How the U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in Allen v. Milligan Will Impact Ongoing Redistricting Litigation". Democracy Docket. June 8, 2023. Retrieved June 11, 2023.
External links
- Text of Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. ___ (2023) is available from: Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (slip opinion)