Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 13

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

7 

Opinion of the Court 

n. 119.4  These sparse results were presumably good news.  
They  likely  showed  that  the  VRA  and  other  efforts  had 
achieved a large measure of success in combating the pre-
viously  widespread  practice  of  using  such  rules  to  hinder 
minority groups from voting. 
  This Court first construed the amended §2 in Thornburg 
v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986)—another vote-dilution case.  
Justice  Brennan’s  opinion  for  the  Court  set  out  three 
threshold requirements for proving a §2 vote-dilution claim, 
and, taking its cue from the Senate Report, provided a non-
exhaustive  list  of  factors  to  be  considered  in  determining 
whether  §2  had  been  violated.    Id.,  at  44–45,  48–51,  80.  
“The essence of a §2 claim,” the Court said, “is that a certain 
electoral  law,  practice,  or  structure  interacts  with  social 
and historical conditions to cause an inequality in the op-
portunities”  of  minority  and  non-minority  voters  to  elect 
their preferred representatives.  Id., at 47. 
  In the years since Gingles, we have heard a steady stream 
of §2 vote-dilution cases,5 but until today, we have not con-
sidered how §2 applies to generally applicable time, place, 
or  manner  voting  rules.    In  recent  years,  however,  such 
claims have proliferated in the lower courts.6 

—————— 

4 See Brown v. Post, 279 F. Supp. 60, 63 (WD La. 1968) (parish clerks 
discriminated with respect to absentee voting); United States v. Post, 297 
F. Supp. 46, 51 (WD La. 1969) (election official induced blacks to vote in 
accordance with outdated procedures and made votes ineffective); Toney 
v. White, 488 F. 2d 310, 312 (CA5 1973) (registrar discriminated in purg-
ing voting rolls). 

5 See Chisom v. Roemer, 501 U. S. 380 (1991) (multi-member district); 
Houston Lawyers’ Assn. v. Attorney General of Tex., 501 U. S. 419 (1991) 
(at-large elections); Voinovich v. Quilter, 507 U. S. 146 (1993) (district-
ing); Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25 (1993) (same); Holder v. Hall, 512 
U. S.  874  (1994)  (single-member  commission);  Johnson  v.  De  Grandy, 
512 U. S. 997 (1994) (districting); Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U. S. 74 (1997) 
(same); League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U. S. 399 
(2006) (same); Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. ___ (2018) (same). 

6 See Brief for Sen. Ted Cruz et al. as Amici Curiae 22–24 (describing 
§2 challenges to laws regulating absentee voting, precinct voting, early