Louisiana v. Callais · ¶178
This Court, as noted above, invoked that shield to uphold Gingles just three Terms ago. See supra, at 146. In Allen, Alabama proposed a way of limiting Gingles to make it harder to win a vote-dilution suit. We responded that “Congress is undoubtedly aware” of how this Court has construed Section 2. 599 U. S., at 39. And, we said, “[i]t can change that if it likes.” Ibid. “But until and unless it does, statutory stare decisis counsels our staying the course.” Ibid. (citing Kimble, 576 U. S., at 456); see also 599 U. S., at 42, 43, n. 1 (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in part) (invoking “stringent statutory stare decisis” rules and noting that “[i]n the past 37 years” Congress “ha[s] not disturbed Gingles”). And if that's not enough (though why not?), then there's this. Justice Alito dissented in Allen in a way that prefgured today's opinion, proposing there that the Gingles framework be…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.