Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21a375_d18f.pdf
Page Number: 10

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

1 

KAGAN, J., dissenting 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 21A375 (21–1086) and 21A376 (21–1087) 
_________________ 

JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ET AL. 
v. 
EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. 

21A375 (21–1086) 

JOHN H. MERRILL, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF 
STATE, ET AL. 
v. 
MARCUS CASTER, ET AL. 

21A376 (21–1087) 

ON APPLICATIONS FOR STAYS OR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF 

 [February 7, 2022]

  JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  and 
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR join, dissenting from grant of applica-
tions for stays. 
  After  considering  a  massive  factual  record,  developed 
over  seven  days  of  testimony,  and  reviewing  more  than 
1,000  pages  of  briefing,  a  three-judge  District  Court  held 
that Alabama’s redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act (VRA).  The District Court (including two 
judges  from  the  State)  found  that  the  plan  unlawfully  di-
luted the votes of the State’s Black population, and ordered 
the State to devise a new plan for the 2022 elections.  Ala-
bama now seeks a stay of that ruling.  Usually, when a liti-
gant applies to this Court for a stay, it argues that the lower 
court erred under current law.  But Alabama’s application 
cannot  be  understood  in  that  way.    Accepting  Alabama’s 
contentions would rewrite decades of this Court’s precedent 
about Section 2 of the VRA.  For that reason, this Court goes