Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 135 S. Ct. 1257

Background

After the 2010 Census Alabama redrew its 105 House and 35 Senate districts in 2012; the legislature prioritized very low population deviation (~±1%) and compliance with Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act (preclearance).
Many preexisting majority‑minority districts were underpopulated; to meet equal‑population goals the legislature added large numbers of black residents to several majority‑black districts (e.g., Senate District 26 gained ~15,785 people, only 36 of whom were white).
Plaintiffs (Alabama Legislative Black Caucus and Alabama Democratic Conference) alleged the plans were racial gerrymanders in violation of the Equal Protection Clause (Shaw/Miller line) and raised other Voting Rights Act and one‑person‑one‑vote claims; a three‑judge District Court rejected the challenges after a bench trial.
The Supreme Court granted review limited to racial‑gerrymandering claims and found multiple legal errors in the District Court’s analysis, vacating and remanding for further district‑specific proceedings.
Key procedural errors identified: (1) treating the claim as a statewide challenge rather than district‑by‑district; (2) improperly resolving association standing for the Conference sua sponte without seeking supplementation; (3) misapplying the ‘‘predominance’’ inquiry by treating equal‑population objectives as an ordinary competing factor; and (4) misreading Section 5 as requiring maintenance of fixed minority percentages (affecting the narrow‑tailoring analysis).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Geographic scope of claim	Plaintiffs argued the State used race to draw many specific majority‑minority districts (or the policy as applied statewide)	State and dissent: plaintiffs limited to a statewide claim and waived district‑by‑district challenges	Court: racial‑gerrymander claims are district‑specific; plaintiffs did not waive district claims; remand to consider specific districts
Association standing (Conference)	Conference: is a statewide organization with members in almost every county, sufficient to infer members in challenged districts	State: record lacked proof members lived in specific challenged districts; District Court denied standing	Court: District Court erred by dismissing standing sua sponte without allowing supplementation; remand to permit member‑lists/evidence and State response
Predominance (was race the predominant factor?)	Plaintiffs: legislature subordinated traditional race‑neutral criteria to race (used racial targets to decide which voters to add)	State/District Court: equal‑population requirement was the primary motivator and may be weighed like any other nonracial factor	Court: equal‑population requirement is background law, not an ordinary competing factor; predominance analysis must focus on whether race, rather than traditional districting criteria, dictated which voters were placed in a district; remand to reassess predominance (e.g., SD26)
Narrow tailoring / compelling interest (Section 5)	Plaintiffs: using race to pack districts exceeded any permissible Section 5 need and may not be narrowly tailored	State/District Court: compliance with Section 5 (avoiding retrogression) is a compelling interest and justified race‑based choices; Section 5 required keeping minority percentages	Court: §5 requires preserving the minority group's ability to elect preferred candidates, not fixed numeric percentages; the District Court and legislature relied on a mechanical percentage standard and asked the wrong question; narrow‑tailoring requires a strong basis in evidence that the race‑based steps were necessary to preserve ability to elect; remand to reassess narrow‑tailoring under correct legal standard

Key Cases Cited

Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (racial gerrymandering violates Equal Protection; race as predominant factor triggers strict scrutiny)
Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (race‑based districting that lacks adequate justification is forbidden)
Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900 (plaintiff must show race was the predominant motivating factor for placing voters within or without a particular district)
Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952 (courts must scrutinize each challenged district for racial predominance)
United States v. Hays, 515 U.S. 737 (association standing requires members who would have standing individually, e.g., residing in challenged district)
Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.S. 835 (one‑person, one‑vote population‑deviation standards)
Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557 (‘‘strong basis in evidence’’ standard for race‑based government actions)
Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (prior §5 retrogression analysis and flexibility in district composition)
Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130 (§5 prohibits changes that would lead to retrogression in minority position)