Quimbee logo
DMCA.com Protection Status

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

575 U.S. 254, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015)

Case BriefQ&ARelatedOptions
From our private database of 22,300+ case briefs...

Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama

United States Supreme Court

575 U.S. 254, 135 S. Ct. 1257 (2015)

Facts

In 2012, following the 2010 U.S. Census, Alabama (defendant) redrew its electoral districts. Alabama had two primary goals when redistricting: ensuring an equal population of voters within each district according to the one person, one vote principle and complying with the Voting Rights Act (VRA). Section 5 of the VRA required covered jurisdictions—states with a history of racial voter discrimination—to show that any changes made to electoral procedures would not reduce the political power of minority voters. Alabama was a covered jurisdiction. Alabama believed that § 5 required covered jurisdictions to maintain existing percentages of minority voters within majority-minority districts when redistricting. Alabama’s majority-minority districts were underpopulated, so Alabama had to add new individuals to those districts. For example, prior to 2012, District 26 had an approximately 73 percent Black population. Alabama needed to add almost 16,000 people to District 26 for the district to have a population equal to that of other districts. To maintain the percentage of Black voters in District 26, Alabama focused on the race of the district’s potential new members and added only 36 new White individuals. The Alabama Legislative Black Caucus (the caucus) (plaintiff) challenged Alabama’s redistricting, arguing that Alabama violated the VRA and engaged in racial gerrymandering by inappropriately focusing on race when redistricting. The district court held that Alabama did not violate the VRA because race was not the predominant factor in Alabama’s redistricting; rather, Alabama prioritized both race and equal populations. The district court also held that, even if race was the predominant factor, Alabama did not violate the VRA because its redistricting was narrowly tailored to comply with § 5 and, therefore, survived strict scrutiny. To reach its conclusion, the district court adopted Alabama’s belief that § 5 required covered jurisdictions to maintain the existing percentages of minority voters within majority-minority districts. The caucus appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Breyer, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 518,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 22,300 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Questions and answers

Have a question about this case?

Sign up for a free 7-day trial and ask it

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 518,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 22,300 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership