Allen v. Milligan · ¶53

Of course, Alabama had every right to raise its “legal disagreement,” ante, at 513, with the District Court's original preliminary injunction through the appellate process or otherwise. The course of action the State chose here, however, was not the proper way of doing so. Had Alabama complied with the preliminary injunction and drawn a map with a second opportunity district, it could have relitigated the merits in the ordinary course: first at a trial on the merits, and then on appeal. At either stage, it could have raised the arguments that the litigants in Callais raised and prevailed on, or advanced challenges to the District Court's remedial order. Instead, Alabama willfully drew a map that fouted the District Court's preliminary injunction and hoped that this Court would eventually see things its way. After today, it is hard to call Alabama's cynical gambit anything other than a…

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