Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-1086_1co6.pdf
Page Number: 42.0

Cite as:  599 U. S. ____ (2023) 

1 

KAVANAUGH, J., concurring 
KAVANAUGH, J., concurring in part 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

Nos. 21–1086 and 21–1087 
_________________ 

WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, 
ET AL., APPELLANTS 
v. 
EVAN MILLIGAN, ET AL. 

21–1086 

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR 
THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

WES ALLEN, ALABAMA SECRETARY OF STATE, 
ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. 
MARCUS CASTER, ET AL. 

21–1087 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI BEFORE JUDGMENT TO THE UNITED 
STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

[June 8, 2023] 

  JUSTICE KAVANAUGH, concurring in all but Part III–B–1. 
  I agree with the Court that Alabama’s redistricting plan 
violates  §2  of  the  Voting  Rights  Act  as  interpreted  in 
Thornburg  v.  Gingles,  478  U. S.  30  (1986).    I  write 
separately to emphasize four points. 
  First, the upshot of Alabama’s argument is that the Court 
should overrule Gingles.  But the stare decisis standard for 
this  Court  to  overrule  a  statutory  precedent,  as  distinct 
from  a  constitutional  precedent,  is  comparatively  strict.  
Unlike  with  constitutional  precedents,  Congress  and  the 
President  may  enact  new  legislation  to  alter  statutory 
precedents such as Gingles.  In the past 37 years, however, 
Congress  and  the  President  have  not  disturbed  Gingles, 
even as they have made other changes to the Voting Rights 
Act.  Although statutory stare decisis is not absolute, “the