Skip to content
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
National Association of Attorneys General
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
Log In
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us

Supreme Court Report: Merrill v. Milligan, 21-1086; Merrill v. Caster, 21-1087

Home / Supreme Court / Supreme Court Report: Merrill v. Milligan, 21-1086; Merrill v. Caster, 21-1087
March 9, 2022 Supreme Court
Share this

  • Dan Schweitzer
    Director, Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
    National Association of Attorneys General

March 9, 2022
Volume 29, Issue 9

This Report summarizes an opinion issued on February 24, 2022 (Part I); and cases granted review on February 7, 18, and 22, 2022 (Part II).

Opinion: Merrill v. Milligan, 21-1086; Merrill v. Caster, 21-1087

Merrill v. Milligan, 21-1086; Merrill v. Caster, 21-1087. In these consolidated cases, the Court will consider whether Alabama’s congressional redistricting plan—which includes only one majority-black district rather than two—runs afoul of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Following the 2020 census, Alabama enacted a new districting plan for its seven congressional districts. Except for small differences, the plan reflected the congressional districts already in effect, which included (as it had since 1990) one majority-Black district. This plan was immediately challenged by three sets of plaintiffs. In Caster, plaintiffs alleged that the plan diluted the voting strength of Black Alabamians, and thus violated Section 2 of the VRA because it failed to draw a second, reasonably compact majority-Black district (despite the fact that Alabama is now 27% Black). In Milligan, plaintiffs claimed that the lack of a second majority-Black district was a violation of both the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause. (In the third action, which is not part of the consolidated cases before the Court, plaintiffs sought the same outcome, but only under an equal protection theory, Singleton v. Merrill, No. 2:21-cv-1291-AMN). A three-judge court was empaneled for the Singleton and Milligan suits pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2284(a) because of the constitutional nature of their claims. Caster remained pending before a single judge (who was a member of the three-judge court), but was combined with the other two cases for purposes of a preliminary injunction hearing.

To succeed on a claim under Section 2 of the VRA relating (as here) to the drawing of a single-member district, three preconditions (known as the Gingles factors) must be met: (1) “a ‘minority group’ must be ‘sufficiently large and geographically compact to constitute a majority’ in some reasonably configured legislative district,” (2) “the minority group must be ‘politically cohesive,’” and (3) “a district’s white majority must ‘vote[] sufficiently as a bloc’ to usually ‘defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.’” Cooper v. Harris, 137 S. Ct. 1455, 1470 (2017) (quoting Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30, 50-51 (1986)). To meet the first Gingles factor, plaintiffs introduced several maps created by experts that each established two majority-Black districts. But to create such maps, plaintiffs’ experts had to “prioritize race” over other factors. In other words, to construct two districts that included a sufficient number of Black voters, the mapmakers had to first consider two majority-Black districts as a “non-negotiable” target and only then factor in other traditional districting principles (such as maintaining communities of interest and traditional boundaries). Although Alabama argued that this outcome-determinative strategy was contrary to this Court’s case law, the three-judge court rejected that claim. Finding that the other two Gingles factors had been satisfied (and thus that the plan violated Section 2 of the VRA), the district court issued an injunction and ordered Alabama to create a new districting plan that included two majority-Black districts. The three-judge court did not reach plaintiffs’ equal protection claim.

Alabama sought a stay of the district court decisions, which the Supreme Court granted. In doing so, the Court noted probable jurisdiction in Milligan, and granted certiorari before judgment in Caster, on the question whether the district court correctly found a violation of Section 2 of the VRA. As it did below, Alabama argues that, because race is not a traditional districting principle, the district court erred in relying on maps that “prioritize[d] race” above other, traditional districting principles. Alabama claims that this subordination of traditional districting principles is irreconcilable with both the Constitution and the statutory text of the VRA, which require the application of race-neutral principles. Alabama also argues that allowing race to be used to some extent for purpose of the VRA (but not so much as to offend the Constitution) would create an unadministrable standard that would result in litigation under any circumstances.

Plaintiffs counter that this is a “textbook vote dilution case” where the district court found “that the new plan cracks Black voters among four congressional districts—precisely what Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits.” They insist that “they satisfied the first Gingles precondition by showing that it is possible to draw an additional majority-Black district in Alabama consistent with traditional districting principles. The mere consideration of race in advancing an illustrative plan in a racial vote dilution claim neither undermines that showing nor requires race to predominate over other factors. Alabama’s contrary argument seeks a wholesale revision of Section 2 precedent.”

[Editor’s note: Some of the language in the background section of the summary above was taken from the petition for writ of certiorari and brief in opposition.]

Related Posts

Related Posts

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 20

Supreme Court Report, Volume 31, Issue 13

Supreme Court Report, Volume 32, Issue 6

Connect with NAAG and the Attorney General Community

Create a NAAG account to subscribe to our newsletters or mailing lists.

Create Account
Subscribe
Marble columns and the top of a federal building

scroll to filters

White Logo for the National Association of Attorneys General

1850 M Street NW
12th floor
Washington, DC 20036

TEL 202-326-6000
EMAIL 

Youtube
  • Issues
    • Issues
      • Anticorruption
      • Antitrust
      • Bankruptcy
      • Charities
      • Civil Law
    • Issues
      • Consumer Protection
      • Criminal Law
      • Cyber and Technology
      • Disaster Preparedness & Response
      • Elder Justice
    • Issues
      • Ethics
      • Human Trafficking
      • Medicaid Fraud
      • Opioids
      • Powers & Duties
    • Issues
      • Public Health
      • The U.S. Supreme Court
      • Tobacco
      • Veterans & Military
  • Our Work
    • Training & Research
    • Centers
      • Center for Consumer Protection
      • Center for Supreme Court Advocacy
      • Center for Tobacco & Public Health
    • Committees
    • Initiatives
      • Presidential Initiative
      • Strategic Partnerships
      • International Fellows
      • COVID-19
    • Bankruptcy
    • Policy & Advocacy
  • Events & Training
    • Event Calendar
    • Attorney General Symposium
    • Presidential Summit
    • Capital Forum
    • Region Meetings
    • CLE Credit
    • NAAG Trainings
    • Online Learning
    • NAMFCU Trainings
    • NAAG Faculty
  • News & Resources
    • Attorney General Journal
    • Reports & Publications
    • Newsroom
    • NAAG Policy Letters
    • Podcasts
    • Online Learning
    • Research & Data
    • Member Directory
  • Attorneys General
    • What Attorneys General Do
    • Who is my Attorney General?
    • Attorneys General Office 101
    • Research & Data
    • Awards & Recognition
    • Careers in Attorney General Offices
    • Careers in Medicaid Fraud Control Units
  • About NAAG
    • NAAG Staff
    • NAAG Leadership
    • NAAG Member Services
    • NAAG Regions
    • NAAG FAQs
    • SAGE
    • NAMFCU
    • Newsroom
    • Careers at NAAG
  • Find my AG
  • About NAMFCU
    • About the Medicaid Fraud Control Units
    • Reporting Fraud and Abuse
    • MFCU Member Hub
    • Careers with a MFCU
  • Contact Us
  • Find My AG
  • Consumer Complaints
  • Member Benefits
  • Contact Us
  • Accessibility Statement
  • Privacy & Cookies Notice
  • Sitemap
  • Member Login

About the National Association of Attorneys General

As the nonpartisan national forum for America's state and territory attorneys general and their staff, NAAG provides collaboration, insight, and expertise to empower and champion America's attorneys general.
Learn More

© 2025 Copyright National Association of Attorneys General

Website by Yoko Co

Internal Feedback / Report an Error

Request an Update / Report an Error

The change you are requesting will be linked to this page. The URL for the page will be included in a hidden field when the form is submitted.
Please enter your change or describe your request. Be sure to reference where the error appears on the page and what needs to be done specifically.
Upload any files that need to be linked to this page. PDF only. Submit another request if you have more than five files to upload.
Drop files here or
Accepted file types: pdf, docx, xls, Max. file size: 50 MB, Max. files: 5.

    Who is requesting this change?(Required)

    Scroll To Top
    To provide you more clarity about how we collect, store and use personal information, and your rights to control that information, we have updated our privacy policy, which also explains how we use cookies. You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.I Agree