In a decision that surprised legal experts across the country, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday against congressional maps drawn in Alabama, asserting that they were the product of racist gerrymandering.
Two conservative bloc justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh — joined with all three liberal bloc members (Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) to form the majority opinion in the case. Roberts penned the opinion of the Court.
Because of the many restrictions to the Voting Rights Act (VRA) that were implemented over the past few Supreme Court terms, the case was expected to result in the law being further curtailed. Instead, however, the ruling produced a “step back from the brink of totally gutting” the 1965 statute, NPR reported.
The Court agreed with a lower appellate court’s ruling that found that Alabama officials had unfairly packed Black voters into one majority-Black district near the capital city of Montgomery, diluting Black residents’ voting power near that area by placing them in three other majority-white districts. Although Black Alabamans make up around 27 percent of the state’s population, with just one Black-majority district, the maps greatly diminished the ability of Black voters to select lawmakers.
Alabama officials contended that their maps were developed in a race-neutral way, and thus constitutional. Roberts and the majority, however, noted that Alabama was trying to create new benchmarks for drawing districts, thwarting precedent established by the Supreme Court in the 1980s.
“The heart of these cases is not about the law as it exists. It is about Alabama’s attempt to remake our…jurisprudence anew,” Roberts said in the majority opinion.
If the Court had adopted the “race-neutral benchmark,” Roberts wrote, it would fare “poorly” in practice, “which further counsels against our adopting it.”
The appellate court had initially ruled that a new map had to be drawn up, with a second majority-Black (or near-majority) district to be drawn within it. The Supreme Court affirmed that ruling, and as a result of the decision published on Thursday, a second district encompassing a majority of Black voters will be part of Alabama’s congressional delegation moving forward.
Even though he joined four other justices in opposing the gerrymandered districts, Roberts left open the possibility, in his opinion, of justices further diluting the VRA in the future, writing that the majority’s ruling doesn’t “diminish or disregard” his and other conservatives’ concerns that the law “may impermissibly elevate race in the allocation of political power within the States.”
But the map drawn by Alabama lawmakers was not a “faithful application of precedent,” Roberts added.
Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for The Nation, took note of Roberts’s words.
“Roberts flipped here because Alabama went too far,” Mystal wrote. “That Roberts has a ‘too far’ line on this issue IS surprising. But he’s not coming to Jesus or anything.”
The ruling has the potential to extend to two other cases — one in Louisiana and another in Georgia — in which Black voters have argued that they are deserving of additional majority or near-majority districts due to gerrymandered maps diluting their votes.
NAACP Legal Defense Fund director of litigation Deuel Ross, who argued the case before the Court last fall, celebrated the ruling, but recognized that more work is needed to secure true representation for voters in Alabama and elsewhere.
This decision is a crucial win against the continued onslaught of attacks on voting rights. Alabama attempted to rewrite federal law by saying race could not be considered in the redistricting process even when necessary to remedy racial discrimination. But because of the state’s sordid and well-documented pattern of persisting racial discrimination, race must be considered to ensure communities of color are not boxed out of the electoral process.
Tish Gotell Faulks, legal director for the ACLU of Alabama, also celebrated the ruling.
“The key takeaway from today’s decision is the court’s acknowledgment that the Alabama Legislature knowingly continued its legacy of drawing illegal voting districts that disenfranchise Black voters. The Alabama Legislature must now draw new, fairer voting districts,” Gotell Faulks said.
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy