Allen v. Milligan · ¶49
In response, Alabama asserts that it is the lower court that violated Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U. S. 1 (2006), because it was “the Legislature's and the Governor's choice” to infict these harms. Application for Stay 35. Alabama's weaponization of Purcell ignores half the story. Until roughly three weeks ago, the District Court's remedial plan had governed in Alabama for more than two years. Then, this Court vacated the District Court's injunction and restored the 2023 Redistricting Plan. Although Alabama chose to use the 2023 Redistricting Plan for this election following this Court's decision, the fact remains that this Court allowed this change to go forward. Now, the Court is being presented with a choice. It can use its equitable authority to fix the mess it has created, or it can use that same authority to deepen it further. The answer is clear: No principle of either law or equity…Read in context ›
preliminary print (page proof)
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.