Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 90

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

45 

THOMAS, J., dissenting 

omitted).  The next section of City of Rome then separately 
examined and upheld the reasonableness of the extension’s 
7-year time period.  See id., at 181–182.  City of Rome thus 
stands  for  precisely  the  propositions  for  which  City  of 
Boerne cited it: Congress may adopt “[p]reventive measures 
. . . when there is reason to believe that many of the laws 
affected by the congressional enactment have a significant 
likelihood of being unconstitutional,” 521 U. S., at 532, par-
ticularly  when  it  employs  “termination  dates,  geographic 
restrictions,  or  egregious  predicates”  that  “tend  to  ensure 
Congress’ means are proportionate to ends legitimate,” id., 
at  533;  see  also  id.,  at  532–533  (analyzing  Katzenbach  in 
similar terms); Shelby County, 570 U. S., at 535, 545–546 
(same).    Again,  however,  the  amended  §2  lacks  any  such 
salutary limiting principles; it is unbounded in time, place, 
and  subject  matter,  and  its  districting-related  commands 
have no nexus to any likely constitutional wrongs. 
  In short, as construed by the District Court, §2 does not 
remedy or deter unconstitutional discrimination in district-
ing in any way, shape, or form.  On the contrary, it requires 
it, hijacking the districting process to pursue a goal that has 
no  legitimate  claim  under  our  constitutional  system:  the 
proportional  allocation  of  political  power  on  the  basis  of 
race.  Such a statute “cannot be considered remedial, pre-
ventive  legislation,”  and  the  race-based  redistricting  it 
would command cannot be upheld under the Constitution.  
City of Boerne, 521 U. S., at 532.21 
—————— 

21 JUSTICE  KAVANAUGH,  at  least,  recognizes  that  §2’s  constitutional 
footing is problematic, for he agrees that “race-based redistricting cannot 
extend  indefinitely  into  the  future.”    Ante,  at  4  (opinion  concurring  in 
part).  Nonetheless, JUSTICE KAVANAUGH votes to sustain a system of in-
stitutionalized racial discrimination in districting—under the aegis of a 
statute that applies nationwide and has no expiration date—and thus to 
prolong the “lasting harm to our society” caused by the use of racial clas-
sifications in the allocation of political power.  Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 657.  
I cannot agree with that approach.  The Constitution no more tolerates 
this discrimination today than it will tolerate it tomorrow.