Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 110.0

14 

ALLEN v. MILLIGAN 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

questions about her work in this litigation, see 2 App. 710.  
If  it  was  impossible  to draw  two  such districts  in  2010, it 
surely  at  least  requires  a  great  deal  of  intentional  effort 
now. 
  The  Court  suggests  that  little  can  be  inferred  from  Dr. 
Duchin’s two-million-map study because two million maps 
are  not  that  many  in  comparison  to  the  “trillion  trillion” 
maps  that  are  possible.    See  ante,  at  28–29,  and  n.  9.    In 
making this argument, the Court relies entirely on an ami-
cus brief submitted by three computational redistricting ex-
perts in support of the appellees.  See Brief for Computa-
tional  Redistricting  Experts  2,  6,  n. 7.    These  experts’ 
argument  concerns  a  complicated  statistical  issue,  and  I 
think it is unwise for the Court to make their argument part 
of our case law based solely on this brief.  By the time this 
amicus  brief  was  submitted,  the  appellants  had  already 
filed  their  main  brief,  and  it  was  too  late  for  any  experts 
with contrary views to submit an amicus brief in support of 
appellants.  Computer simulations are widely used today to 
make  predictions  about  many  important  matters,  and  I 
would not place stringent limits on their use in VRA litiga-
tion  without  being  quite  sure  of  our  ground.    If  the  cases 
were remanded, the parties could take up this issue if they 
wished and call experts to support their positions on the ex-
tent to which the two million maps in the study are or can 
be probative of the full universe of maps. 
  In sum, based on my understanding of the current record, 
I am doubtful that the plaintiffs could get by the first Gin-
gles precondition, but I would let the District Court sort this 
matter out on remand. 

B 
  Despite  the  strong  evidence  that  two  majority-minority 
districts  cannot  be  drawn  without  singular  emphasis  on 
race,  a  plurality  nonetheless  concludes  that  race  did  not 
predominate  in  the  drawing  of  the  plaintiffs’  illustrative