Allen v. Milligan

E952394

Allen v. Milligan is a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed and strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.

Try in SPARQL Jump to: Surface forms Statements Referenced by

All labels observed (1)

Label Occurrences
Allen v. Milligan canonical 1

Statements (49)

Predicate Object
instanceOf Section 2 Voting Rights Act case
United States Supreme Court case
redistricting case
voting rights case
aroseFrom Alabama congressional redistricting
citation 599 U.S. ___ (2023)
concerns congressional districting
racial vote dilution
concernsSection Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
concernsStatute Voting Rights Act of 1965 NERFINISHED
country United States of America
surface form: United States
decisionDate 2023-06-08
defendant Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State NERFINISHED
dissentingJustice Amy Coney Barrett NERFINISHED
Clarence Thomas NERFINISHED
Neil M. Gorsuch NERFINISHED
Samuel A. Alito Jr. NERFINISHED
docketNumber 21-1086
effect preserved the core framework of Section 2 vote-dilution claims
strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting
hasJurisdiction Supreme Court of the United States NERFINISHED
holding Alabama must create a second majority-Black or near-majority-Black congressional district or something close to it
Alabama’s 2021 congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to claims of racial vote dilution in redistricting
issue whether Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength
whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires creation of an additional majority-Black district in Alabama
joinedMajorityJustice Brett M. Kavanaugh NERFINISHED
Elena Kagan NERFINISHED
Ketanji Brown Jackson NERFINISHED
Sonia Sotomayor NERFINISHED
legalTestApplied Gingles preconditions
lowerCourtDisposition three-judge district court preliminarily enjoined Alabama’s congressional map
majorityOpinionBy John G. Roberts Jr. NERFINISHED
originatingCourt United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama NERFINISHED
plaintiffGroup Black voters in Alabama
reaffirmedPrecedent Section 2 vote-dilution jurisprudence
Thornburg v. Gingles NERFINISHED
rejectedArgument that Section 2 is unconstitutional as applied to redistricting
that Section 2 requires race-neutral redistricting benchmarks only
relatedAreaOfLaw civil rights law
election law
relatedConstitutionalProvision Fifteenth Amendment NERFINISHED
Fourteenth Amendment NERFINISHED
stateInvolved Alabama NERFINISHED
subsequentImpact influenced redistricting litigation in other states
prompted Alabama to redraw its congressional map
SupremeCourtDisposition affirmed the district court’s judgment
term October Term 2022
voteSplit 5-4

Referenced by (1)

Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act keyCase Allen v. Milligan