Allen v. Milligan · ¶32

Next, the District Court did not clearly err when concluding that Alabama acted with discriminatory purpose. The plaintiffs were required to demonstrate that race was “a motivating factor” in the adoption of the 2023 Redistricting Plan; they were not required to prove that it was the “sol[e],” “ `dominant,' ” or even “ `primary' ” motivation. Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 265–266 (1977); see Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 66–74 (1980) (plurality opinion) (applying Arlington Heights to claim for intentional vote dilution). The District Court's finding of discriminatory intent is reviewed for clear error, meaning that its factual determination “must govern” if it is “ `plausible' in light of the full record.” Cooper v. Harris, 581 U. S. 285, 293 (2017)).

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