In Allen v. Milligan, decided June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that Alabama’s post-2020 congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting the voting power of Black Alabamians, and it kept intact the decades-old legal test courts use to judge racial vote dilution claims.1Congressional Research Service. Allen v. Milligan: Supreme Court Holds That Alabama Redistricting Map Likely Violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act The decision forced Alabama to redraw its districts before the 2024 elections and set off a wave of redistricting litigation in other states.
What the Court Held
Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority opinion, joined fully by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson, and in part by Justice Kavanaugh. The majority affirmed a lower court’s preliminary injunction blocking Alabama’s map, known as HB1, finding the plaintiffs had satisfied the long-standing legal test for a Section 2 violation and that the totality of circumstances supported it.2Justia. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. ___ (2023)
Black Alabamians make up roughly 27 percent of the state’s population, but under HB1 only one of the state’s seven congressional districts gave them a realistic chance of electing a preferred candidate. The plaintiffs showed that a fairly drawn map could include a second such district. Alabama had asked the Court to adopt a new rule: compare any challenged map against millions of computer-generated “race-neutral” simulations, and if the enacted map looked like those outputs, treat it as lawful. The majority rejected the approach, finding the simulations unreliable and the whole framework unworkable, writing that Section 2 “cannot require courts to judge a contest of computers when there is no reliable way to determine who wins, or even where the finish line is.”3Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. Milligan
Justice Thomas wrote the principal dissent, joined in parts by Justices Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett, with Alito filing a separate dissent joined by Gorsuch. Thomas argued that the plaintiffs’ illustrative maps were themselves racial gerrymanders because they were drawn to produce two majority-Black districts, and he urged the Court to hold that Section 2 does not reach single-member redistricting at all.3Supreme Court of the United States. Allen v. Milligan
Justice Kavanaugh’s concurrence is worth reading closely. He joined most of the majority on the ground that the governing test is settled statutory interpretation and should not be disturbed without extraordinary justification, but he acknowledged a “profound tension” between Section 2’s race-conscious requirements and the Constitution’s hostility to racial classifications. His vote preserved existing law without endorsing it on the merits.
The Legal Test the Case Preserved
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, codified at 52 U.S.C. § 10301, prohibits any voting practice that results in denying or abridging the right to vote based on race. It uses a “results test”: a violation exists if, under the totality of circumstances, the political process is not equally open to members of a protected racial group. The statute does not guarantee proportional representation.4Office of the Law Revision Counsel. 52 USC 10301 – Denial or Abridgement of Right to Vote on Account of Race or Color
Courts evaluate redistricting claims under Section 2 using the three preconditions from Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Plaintiffs must show:5Justia. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986)
- The minority group is large enough and geographically compact enough to form a majority in a reasonably drawn district.
- The group is politically cohesive, tending to support the same candidates.
- The white majority votes as a bloc often enough to usually defeat the minority group’s preferred candidates.
Meeting all three preconditions does not by itself prove a violation; it opens the door to a broader inquiry into the totality of circumstances, including the area’s history of discrimination and the extent of racially polarized voting.6Congressional Research Service. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 at 60 Years: Key Supreme Court Decisions Shaping the Law Today Allen v. Milligan is important largely because this framework survived intact. Had the Court accepted Alabama’s race-neutral benchmark theory, the Gingles test as plaintiffs have used it for nearly four decades would have been functionally dismantled.
What Happened in Alabama Afterward
With the injunction affirmed, Alabama’s legislature passed a replacement map that failed to satisfy the court’s requirements. A three-judge panel then put the task to a court-appointed special master, whose map reshaped the 2nd and 7th Congressional Districts. The 7th retained a Black voting-age population of about 52 percent; the redrawn 2nd came in at roughly 49 percent. The 2nd was not technically majority-Black, but it gave Black voters a realistic opportunity to influence outcomes.7All About Redistricting. Alabama
In November 2024, Democrat Shomari Figures won the redrawn 2nd District with about 54.5 percent of the vote, defeating Republican Caroleene Dobson. Alabama sent two Black representatives to Congress for the first time in the modern era. A federal court has since ruled that the special master’s map must remain in place until the next regular redistricting cycle in 2030.8Department of Justice. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
How the Ruling Has Held Up Since
The decision immediately energized challenges elsewhere. A federal court struck down Georgia’s congressional and legislative maps under Section 2 in October 2023, and Georgia enacted court-approved remedial plans in December 2023. In Louisiana, years of litigation over a congressional map that confined Black representation to one of six districts produced a new map in January 2024 with a second majority-Black district.
Then the legal picture shifted. In April 2026 the Supreme Court decided Louisiana v. Callais, holding that Louisiana’s remedial map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court’s reasoning: Section 2, “properly construed,” did not actually require Louisiana to draw that second majority-Black district, so the state had no compelling interest to justify its race-based mapmaking.9Supreme Court of the United States. Louisiana v. Callais
Callais did not overrule Allen v. Milligan. Compliance with Section 2 can still justify race-conscious redistricting. But a lower court finding that Section 2 “likely” requires an additional majority-minority district is no longer enough on its own to insulate the resulting map from an Equal Protection challenge. The tension Kavanaugh flagged in his concurrence has become a live constraint.
A separate fight concerns who can even bring Section 2 lawsuits. The Eighth Circuit ruled in November 2023, in Arkansas State Conference NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, that Section 2 is not privately enforceable, and it reaffirmed that position in May 2025 in Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians v. Howe.10Arkansas Attorney General. United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Holds the Voting Rights Act Is Not Privately Enforceable If upheld nationally, that interpretation would leave enforcement to the Department of Justice alone. Nearly every major voting rights case of the past six decades, including Allen v. Milligan, was brought by private plaintiffs. The Supreme Court placed the Eighth Circuit’s Turtle Mountain ruling on hold and later sent the case back for reconsideration in light of Callais. The private right of action question remains unresolved.
Where Redistricting Law Stands Now
For states drawing maps, the practical rule after Allen v. Milligan and Callais is uncomfortable in both directions. Ignoring race entirely where racially polarized voting dilutes minority voting strength can violate Section 2. Relying heavily on race without rigorous proof that Section 2 actually compels the result can violate the Equal Protection Clause. The Gingles framework is still the law, and private plaintiffs can still, for now, bring Section 2 claims across most of the country. The window for lawful race-conscious redistricting is narrower than it looked the day Allen v. Milligan was decided.