Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-1257_g204.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

BRNOVICH v. DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE 

Syllabus 

is not the only legitimate interest served by restrictions on ballot col-
lection.  Third-party ballot collection can lead to pressure and intimi-
dation.    Further,  a  State  may  take  action  to  prevent  election  fraud 
without waiting for it to occur within its own borders.  Pp. 30–34. 

(d) HB 2023 was not enacted with a discriminatory purpose, as the 
District Court found.  Appellate review of that conclusion is for clear 
error.  Pullman-Standard v. Swint, 456 U. S. 273, 287–288.  The Dis-
trict Court’s finding on the question of discriminatory intent had am-
ple  support  in  the  record.    The  court  considered  the  historical  back-
ground  and  the  highly  politicized  sequence  of  events  leading  to  HB 
2023’s enactment; it looked for any departures from the normal legis-
lative process; it considered relevant legislative history; and it weighed 
the law’s impact on different racial groups.  See Arlington Heights v. 
Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266–268.  The 
court found HB 2023 to be the product of sincere legislative debate over 
the wisdom of early mail-in voting and the potential for fraud.  And it 
took care to distinguish between racial motives and partisan motives.  
The District Court’s interpretation of the evidence was plausible based 
on the record, so its permissible view is not clearly erroneous.  See An-
derson v. Bessemer City, 470 U. S. 564, 573–574.   The Court of Appeals 
concluded that the District Court committed clear error by failing to 
apply  a  “cat’s  paw”  theory—which  analyzes  whether  an  actor  was  a 
“dupe” who was “used by another to accomplish his purposes.”  That 
theory has its origin in employment discrimination cases and has no 
application to legislative bodies.  Pp. 34–37. 

948 F. 3d 989, reversed and remanded. 

  ALITO, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., 
and  THOMAS,  GORSUCH,  KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.    GOR-
SUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which THOMAS, J., joined.  KAGAN, 
J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  BREYER  and  SOTOMAYOR,  JJ., 
joined.