Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 41

34 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

Opinion of the Court 

the effects test of §2 as interpreted in Gingles and, under 
certain  circumstances,  have  authorized  race-based  redis-
tricting as a remedy for state districting maps that violate 
§2.  See, e.g., supra, at 11; cf. Mississippi Republican Exec-
utive Committee v. Brooks, 469 U. S. 1002 (1984).  In light 
of that precedent, including City of Rome, we are not per-
suaded by Alabama’s arguments that §2 as interpreted in 
Gingles exceeds the remedial authority of Congress. 
  The  concern  that  §2  may  impermissibly  elevate  race  in 
the  allocation  of  political  power  within  the  States  is,  of 
course, not new.  See, e.g., Shaw, 509 U. S., at 657 (“Racial 
gerrymandering, even for remedial purposes, may balkan-
ize us into competing racial factions; it threatens to carry 
us further from the goal of a political system in which race 
no longer matters.”).  Our opinion today does not diminish 
or disregard these concerns.  It simply holds that a faithful 
application of our precedents and a fair reading of the rec-
ord before us do not bear them out here. 

* 

  * 
  The judgments of the District Court for the Northern Dis-
trict of Alabama in the Caster case, and of the three-judge 
District Court in the Milligan case, are affirmed. 

  * 

It is so ordered.