Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 12.0

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

3 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

I 
  Following the 2020 census, the plaintiffs here challenged 
Alabama’s newly enacted redistricting plan under Section 
2.  Alabama’s population is 27% Black, but under the plan, 
Black voters have the power to elect their preferred candi-
date in only one of the State’s seven congressional districts.  
That alone does not demonstrate vote dilution.  What raises 
the  prospect  of  a  Section  2  claim  is  that  Alabama’s  Black 
population  is  heavily  “concentrated”  in  the  urban  popula-
tion centers and an area of the State known as the Black 
Belt, “named for the region’s fertile black soil,” where many 
enslaved people were taken during the antebellum period.  
App.  to  Application  in  No.  21A375,  pp. 36–37,  160–161 
(App.).  Because “Black voters in Alabama are relatively ge-
ographically compact,” the plaintiffs argued that the State 
could have drawn a second congressional district, meeting 
traditional districting criteria, in which Black Alabamians 
would constitute a majority.  Id., at 161.  But the State had 
instead “pack[ed]” much of the Black population into a sin-
gle district, and “crack[ed]” the remainder over three oth-
ers.    Id.,  at  36–41.    That  action,  the  plaintiffs  contended, 
diluted their voting power. 
  The  Court’s  longstanding  precedent  imposes  strict  re-
quirements  for  proving  a  vote-dilution  claim.    To  start, 
plaintiffs must satisfy three conditions, often referred to as 
the Gingles conditions.   Those  conditions  are:  (1) that  the 
“minority  group  is  sufficiently  large  and  geographically 
compact to constitute a majority” in a district, (2) that the 
minority  group  “is  politically  cohesive,”  and  (3)  that  the 
“white majority votes sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . 

—————— 
docket.  The question this stay application presents is what to do in the 
interim.  Should we freeze the District Court’s decision and thereby ena-
ble Alabama to proceed with the violation of voting rights found by that 
court?    Or  should  we  leave  the  District  Court’s  decision  in  place,  thus 
allowing a remedy to the adjudicated violation of rights to go into effect?  
For the reasons that follow, the latter course is the only appropriate one.