Allen v. Milligan (Voting Rights)

Send us Fan MailIn a brief per curiam order, the Supreme Court stayed a federal district court injunction that would have prevented Alabama from using its 2023 congressional map in the 2026 elections. The Court held that Alabama was likely to succeed on appeal because the district court failed to apply the standards the Supreme Court recently announced in Louisiana v. Callais. Under Callais, plaintiffs challenging a map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act must show that their proposed alternative map satisfies all of the State’s legitimate districting objectives just as well as the State’s map and must demonstrate racial bloc voting independent of partisan affiliation. The Court found that the district court nevertheless concluded Alabama’s map violated both Section 2 and the Fourteenth Amendment even though the plaintiffs’ alternative map did not perform as well on some of Alabama’s stated districting goals, including preserving the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding pairing incumbents. The Court also criticized the district court for treating Alabama’s disagreement with an earlier remedial order as evidence of discriminatory intent and for failing to account for the distinction between racial and partisan voting patterns required by Callais. Finally, the Court emphasized the principle that federal courts should avoid changing election rules close to an election and concluded that the balance of harms and public interest favored allowing Alabama to conduct its imminent 2026 congressional elections under the map enacted by its legislature while the litigation continues.Support the show