Allen v. Milligan (599 U.S. 1)
U.S. Supreme Court · decided June 8, 2023 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Citation
- 599 U.S. 1 · 143 S. Ct. 1487
- Decided
- June 8, 2023
- Term
- October Term 2022
- Vote
- 5–4
- Majority author
- Justice Roberts
- Issue area
- Civil Rights
- Disposition
- Affirmed
- Outcome
- Petitioning party lost
- Ideological direction
- Liberal
Opinion excerpt
(Slip Opinion) OCTOBER TERM, 2022 1 Syllabus NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321 , 337. SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Syllabus ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, ET AL. v. MILLIGAN ET AL. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA No. 21–1086. Argued October 4, 2022—Decided June 8, 2023* The issue presented is whether the districting plan adopted by the State of Alabama for its 2022 congressional elections likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, 52 U. S. C. §10301 . As originally enacted in 1965, §2 of the Act tracked the language of the Fifteenth Amendment, providing that “[t]he right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged . . . on account of race, color, or previous con- dition of servitude.” In City of Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 , this Court held that the Fifteenth Amendment—and thus §2—prohibits States from acting with a “racially discriminatory motivation” or an “invidious purpose” to discriminate, but it does not prohibit laws that are discriminatory only in effect.…
Excerpt of a 229,460-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.