The Supreme Court Has Invented a Right to Discriminate The Roberts Court has allowed Alabama to proceed with a congressional map that dilutes Black voting power, despite federal court orders to create a second majority-Black district. Critics argue this decision, following a similar one in Louisiana v. Callais, effectively replaces the Fifteenth Amendment’s prohibition on racial discrimination in voting with a right to engage in such discrimination, provided there is a political pretext. This ruling is seen as a departure from the original intent of the Civil War amendments and a significant setback for voting rights.

• The Supreme Court allowed Alabama to use a congressional map that diminishes Black voting power, defying previous federal court orders.
• Critics view the ruling as evidence of the Court’s partisanship, prioritizing Republican interests over racial justice and the rule of law.
• The decision is seen as an extension of the logic in Louisiana v. Callais, suggesting that racial discrimination in districting is permissible if framed as partisan.
• The Court’s majority argued the lower court ‘failed to follow our instruction,’ referencing a prior decision where race and politics were deemed inseparable.
• The ruling in effect creates a right to discriminate based on race, as long as there is a political pretext, undermining the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
• The Court’s decision places a burden on plaintiffs to create alternative maps that satisfy the discriminating state’s ‘legitimate’ objectives, even when intentional discrimination is proven.