Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 43

Cite as:  594 U. S. ____ (2021) 

37 

Opinion of the Court 

  The Court of Appeals did not dispute the District Court’s 
assessment  of  the  sincerity  of  HB  2023’s  proponents.    It 
even  agreed  that  some  members  of  the  legislature  had  a 
“sincere, though mistaken, non-race-based belief that there 
had been fraud in third-party ballot collection, and that the 
problem needed to be addressed.”  948 F. 3d, at 1040.  The 
Court  of  Appeals  nevertheless concluded  that the District 
Court  committed  clear  error  by  failing  to  apply  a  “ ‘cat’s 
paw’ ”  theory  sometimes  used  in  employment  discrimina-
tion cases.  Id., at 1040–1041.  A “cat’s paw” is a “dupe” who 
is “used by another to accomplish his purposes.”  Webster’s 
New International Dictionary 425 (2d ed. 1934).  A plaintiff 
in a “cat’s paw” case typically seeks to hold the plaintiff ’s 
employer liable for “the animus of a supervisor who was not 
charged  with  making  the  ultimate  [adverse]  employment 
decision.”    Staub  v.  Proctor  Hospital,  562  U. S.  411,  415 
(2011). 
  The  “cat’s  paw”  theory  has  no  application  to  legislative 
bodies.    The  theory  rests  on  the  agency  relationship  that 
exists between an employer and a supervisor, but the legis-
lators who vote to adopt a bill are not the agents of the bill’s 
sponsor or proponents.  Under our form of government, leg-
islators have a duty to exercise their judgment and to rep-
resent  their  constituents.    It  is  insulting  to  suggest  that 
they are mere dupes or tools. 

* 

  * 

  * 
  Arizona’s out-of-precinct policy and HB 2023 do not vio-
late  §2  of  the  VRA,  and  HB  2023  was  not  enacted  with  a 
racially discriminatory purpose.  The judgment of the Court 
of Appeals is reversed, and the cases are remanded for fur-
ther proceedings consistent with this opinion. 

It is so ordered.