Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among counsel to the petitioners in this case.

Holding: The district court’s analysis of the racial gerrymandering claim as referring to the state “as a whole,” rather than district by district, was legally erroneous; the district court also erred in holding that the Alabama Democratic Conference lacked standing. Moreover, the district court did not properly calculate “predominance” in its alternative holding that race was not the predominant motivating factor in the creation of any of the challenged districts. Finally, the district court’s other alternative holding – that the challenged districts would satisfy strict scrutiny – rests on a misperception of the law: Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act does not require a covered jurisdiction to maintain a particular numerical minority percentage. Instead, it requires the jurisdiction to maintain a minority’s ability to elect a preferred candidate of choice.

Judgment: Vacated and remanded, 5-4, in an opinion by Justice Breyer on March 25, 2015. Justice Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Thomas and Alito joined. Justice Thomas filed a dissenting opinion.