Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 30

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

23 

Opinion of the Court 
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J. 

is usually not.  That is because “[r]edistricting legislatures 
will  . . .  almost  always  be  aware  of  racial  demographics,” 
Miller, 515 U. S., at 916, but such “race consciousness does 
not  lead  inevitably  to  impermissible  race  discrimination,” 
Shaw, 509 U. S., at 646.  Section 2 itself “demands consid-
eration  of  race.”    Abbott,  581  U. S.,  at  ___  (slip  op.,  at  4).  
The  question  whether  additional  majority-minority  dis-
tricts can  be  drawn,  after  all,  involves  a  “quintessentially 
race-conscious calculus.”  De Grandy, 512 U. S., at 1020. 
  At the same time, however, race may not be “the predom-
inant factor in drawing district lines unless [there is] a com-
pelling reason.”  Cooper, 581 U. S., at 291.  Race predomi-
nates  in  the  drawing  of  district  lines,  our  cases  explain, 
when “race-neutral considerations [come] into play only af-
ter the race-based decision had been made.”  Bethune-Hill 
v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U. S. 178, 189 (2017) 
(internal quotation marks omitted).  That may occur where 
“race for its own sake is the overriding reason for choosing 
one map over others.”  Id., at 190. 
  While  the  line  between  racial  predominance  and  racial 
consciousness  can  be  difficult  to  discern,  see  Miller,  515 
U. S., at 916, it was not breached here.  The Caster plain-
tiffs  relied  on  illustrative  maps  produced  by  expert  Bill 
Cooper.  See 2 App. 591–592.  Cooper testified that while it 
was necessary for him to consider race, he also took several 
other factors into account, such as compactness, contiguity, 
and population equality.  Ibid.  Cooper testified that he gave 
all these factors “equal weighting.”  Id., at 594.  And when 
asked squarely whether race predominated in his develop-
ment  of  the  illustrative  plans,  Cooper  responded:  “No.    It 
was a consideration.  This is a Section 2 lawsuit, after all.  
But it did not predominate or dominate.”  Id., at 595. 
  The District Court agreed.  It found “Cooper’s testimony 
highly credible” and commended Cooper for “work[ing] hard 
to give ‘equal weight[ ]’ to all traditional redistricting crite-
ria.”   582  F. Supp.  3d, at  1005–1006;  see  also id., at  978–