Allen v. Milligan · ¶31

To begin, this Court has already held that the discriminatory-effect element is satisfied in these cases. Again, following the 2020 census, Alabama drew a congressional map with a single majority-Black district. The District Court concluded that the map violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act, and this Court “agree[d].” Allen, 599 U. S., at 19. Callais later changed the standard for § 2 liability, but Callais also made clear that it did “not overrul[e] Allen.” 608 U. S., at 121–122, 125. As I have explained, “[t]hese cases are, of course, Allen,” so if the majority meant what it said in Callais and “Allen is good law . . . , then it must be good law here.” Caster, 608 U. S., at ––– (dissenting opinion). “This Court's finding of racially discriminatory vote dilution is an inextricable, permanent feature of this case,” id., at –––, and it establishes that, as a matter of law, Alabama's…

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