Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 8

Cite as:  595 U. S. ____ (2022) 

1 

ROBERTS, C. J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 21A375 (21–1086) and 21A376 (21–1087) 
_________________ 

JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ET AL. 
v. 
EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. 

21A375 (21–1086) 

JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ET AL. 
v. 
MARCUS CASTER, ET AL. 

21A376 (21–1087) 

ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAYS OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 [February 7, 2022]

  CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, dissenting from grant of appli-
cations for stays. 
  I  respectfully  dissent  from  the  stays  granted  in  these 
cases because, in my view, the District Court properly ap-
plied existing law in an extensive opinion with no apparent 
errors for our correction.  The governing standard for vote 
dilution claims under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is 
set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986), which 
requires “the minority group . . . to demonstrate that it is 
sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute 
a majority in a single-member district.”  Id., at 50.  The Dis-
trict  Court  reviewed  the  submissions  of  the  plaintiffs’  ex-
perts  and  explained  at  length  the  factbound  bases  for  its 
conclusion that the plaintiffs had made that showing.  See 
post, at 3–4 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). 
  But while the District Court cannot be faulted for its ap-
plication  of  Gingles,  it  is  fair  to  say  that  Gingles  and  its