Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 1

(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  As originally enacted in 1965, 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.    Id.,  at  61–65  (plurality  opinion).  
Criticism followed, with many viewing Mobile’s intent test as not suf-
ficiently protective of voting rights.  But others believed that adoption 
of an effects test would inevitably require a focus on proportionality, 
calling voting laws into question whenever a minority group won fewer 
seats in the legislature than its share of the population.  Congress ul-
timately resolved this debate in 1982, reaching a bipartisan compro-
mise that amended §2 to incorporate both an effects test and a robust 
disclaimer that “nothing” in §2 “establishes a right to have members 
of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the 
population.”  §10301(b). 

—————— 

*Together with No. 21–1087, Allen, Alabama Secretary of State, et al. v. 
Caster et al., on certiorari before judgment to the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.