Louisiana v. Callais · ¶185

And if those decisions are too ancient for today's majority, it should consider (again) Allen, from three Terms ago. There, Alabama made an argument, similar to the majority's, that the effects-based framework of Section 2 and Gingles too far strayed from the Fifteenth Amendment's ban on intentional discrimination. We stomped on that objection. “[T]he prior decisions of this Court,” we stated, “foreclose any argument that Congress may not, pursuant to § 2 [of the Fifteenth Amendment], outlaw voting practices that are discriminatory in effect.” 599 U. S., at 41; see id., at 45 (opinion of Kavanaugh, J.) (“[T]he constitutional argument presented by Alabama is not persuasive in light of the Court's precedents”). Section 2's “ban on electoral changes that are discriminatory in effect,” we continued, “is an appropriate method of promoting the purposes of the Fifteenth Amendment.” Id., at 41.…

preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.