Perry v. Perez, 132 S. Ct. 934

Texas must redraw congressional, state Senate, and state House districts after 2010 census to satisfy one-person, one-vote.
Texas is a covered jurisdiction under §5 of the Voting Rights Act; preclearance is required before implementing changes.
A district court in Texas drafted interim maps due to potential §5 preclearance delays and time constraints for 2012 elections.
The district court relied on Texas’s recently enacted plan to guide interim map drawing, while attempting to avoid §5 merits prejudice.
The Court vacates the interim maps and remands for proceedings consistent with its opinion, clarifying limits on balancing state policy guidance with constitutional and §2 concerns.
Justice Thomas writes separately concurring in judgment, reiterating skepticism of §5 and urging vacatur and remand to consider merits in ordinary course.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
May district court use state plan guidance for interim maps under §5?	Perry relies on state plan guidance; argues court should defer to substructure policies.	Appellees contend §5 requires ignoring unprecleared plans entirely.	Yes, guidance is permissible to a degree; cannot adopt unprecleared plan.
Should district court defer to state plan but avoid incorporating legal defects?	State plan’s policy choices should guide interim maps.	Court must avoid adopting plan with constitutional or §2 flaws.	Courts may follow policy guidance but must exclude problematic aspects.
Can court redraw districts if population shifts are large and existing plan unusable?	Interim maps necessary to comply with one-person, one-vote.	Judicial drawing should reflect state policies to the extent lawful.	Interim maps are permissible but must align with constitutional and §2 limits.
Did court err by altering state House districts beyond de minimis changes?	Court should minimize departures from enacted plan.	Court can adjust districts where necessary to remedy population disparities.	Some district changes invalid; court must refrain from overhauling enacted plan.
Did court properly handle districts potentially creating minority coalition districts?	District 33 may be discriminatory or a voting-rights concern.	Districts should reflect population shifts unless clearly unlawful.	Court’s approach questioned; remand to reassess under proper standards.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility Dist. No. One v. Holder, 557 U.S. 193 (U.S. 2009) (preclearance, sovereignty concerns; guide but do not override state policy guidance)
Abrams v. Johnson, 521 U.S. 74 (U.S. 1997) (district court should reflect state policies that meet constitutional/§2 constraints)
White v. Weiser, 412 U.S. 783 (U.S. 1973) (favor legislatively enacted plan when not violating law; defer to state policies where lawful)
Upham v. Seamon, 456 U.S. 37 (U.S. 1982) (deferring to state plans that meet preclearance standards to extent they pass)
Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (U.S. 2009) (plurality on minority rights; caution against altering plan absent lawful basis)