Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 16

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

9 

Opinion of the Court 

Id., at 936.2 
  Four days later, on January 28, Alabama moved in this 
Court  for  a  stay  of  the  District  Court’s  injunction.    This 
Court granted a stay and scheduled the cases for argument, 
noting probable jurisdiction in Milligan and granting certi-
orari before judgment in Caster.  595 U. S. ___ (2022). 

II 
  The District Court found that plaintiffs demonstrated a 
reasonable likelihood of success on their claim that HB1 vi-
olates §2.  We affirm that determination. 

A 
  For  the  past  forty  years,  we  have  evaluated  claims 
brought  under  §2  using  the  three-part  framework  devel-
oped  in  our  decision  Thornburg  v.  Gingles,  478  U. S.  30 
(1986).  Gingles concerned a challenge to North Carolina’s 
multimember  districting  scheme,  which  allegedly  diluted 
the vote of its black citizens.  Id., at 34–36.  The case pre-
sented the first opportunity since the 1982 amendments to 
address how the new §2 would operate. 
  Gingles  began  by  describing  what  §2  guards  against.  
“The essence of a §2 claim,” the Court explained, “is that a 
certain  electoral  law,  practice,  or  structure  interacts  with 
social and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the 
opportunities enjoyed by black and white voters.”  Id., at 47.  
That occurs where an “electoral structure operates to mini-
mize  or  cancel  out”  minority  voters’  “ability  to  elect  their 
preferred  candidates.”   Id.,  at  48.   Such  a  risk  is  greatest 

—————— 

2 Judge Manasco, presiding in Caster, also preliminarily enjoined Ala-
bama from using HB1.  Her opinion was based on the same evidentiary 
record as was before the three-judge Court, and it adopted in full that 
Court’s  “recitation  of  the  evidence,  legal  analysis,  findings  of  fact  and 
conclusions  of  law.”    1  App.  to  Emergency  Application  for  Stay  in  No. 
2:21–cv–1536, p. 4; see also 582 F. Supp. 3d, at 942–943, and n. 4.  Any 
reference  to  the  “District  Court”  in  this  opinion  applies  to  the  Caster 
Court as well as to the three-judge Court.