Allen v. Milligan

-

Allen v. Milligan

Unbiased Case Analysis:

In 2021 Alabama attempted to redraw the districts in the state considering the data from the 2020 census. It created 7 districts which would give Alabama 7 seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. However, only one of the districts was black majority despite African Americans making up nearly a quarter of the state’s population. Alabama’s district plan was challenged and brought before a district court. The district court found that the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the VRA prohibits state and local officials from discriminating based on race in voting laws and procedures. The state asked the Supreme Court to intervene in the district court’s ruling. The Court paused the district court’s decision until they heard the case.

            In a 5-4 decision the Court found that Alabama’s redistricting plan violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court ordered Alabama to redraw the districts so black voters could have a fair chance to choose their representatives in at least two districts. Justice John Roberts authored the majority opinion while Justice Clarence Thomas authored the dissenting opinion.

Personal Perspective:

            The Court’s decision has set a precedent for how race can contribute to the districting of not only Alabama but also other states. I agree with the Court’s decision against Alabama. Alabama seemed to be intentionally trying to dilute the black vote in the state. However, I agree with Justice Kavanaugh that redistricting cannot be conducted based on race indefinitely into the future. We cannot neglect the role that race may or may not play in creating district maps. However, the government cannot intentionally allocate political power based on race.

Media Critique and Analysis:

            Allen v. Milligan gathered extreme media attention from a variety of outlets on both sides of the political spectrum. Left leaning outlets such as CNN emphasized the importance of the case’s effect on black voters. They pictured the decision as a major victory for black voters and for the Voting Rights Act. They painted Alabama as the villain and the Supreme Court as the surprise savior. Right leaning outlets like Fox News did a surprisingly good job remaining somewhat neutral towards the case. They also highlighted the importance of the case for black voters and the VRA. The New York Times provided an excellent analysis of the case that provided in depth analysis on both sides of the case.

Sources:

Allen v. Milligan | Oyez

SCOTUS tells Alabama it meant what it said the first time | CNN Politics

Supreme Court Rejects Alabama Voting Map That Diluted Black Voters’ Power - The New York Times

Supreme Court rules in favor of Black voters in Alabama racial gerrymandering case | Fox News

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College

-
Image
  Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College Unbiased case analysis:             Harvard College uses an admissions process that considers the race of applicants to determine whether they should be accepted or not. This is a common practice for many colleges in the United States. Harvard College was sued by Students for Fair Admissions over their use of affirmative action. Affirmative action is simply an action that helps specific demographic groups due to the United States’ history of discrimination. A district court ruled in favor of Harvard and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Frist Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision. The case was eventually brought before the Supreme Court. It was initially going to be consolidated with another case, but the Court chose to hear it individually.             The Court ruled 6-2 in favor of ...
Read more

Biden v. Nebraska

-
Image
Unbiased Case Analysis:             During his presidential run Joe Biden promised to cancel up to $10,000 of federal student loan debt per borrower. He kept his word and used executive action to enact his promise. Nebraska and five other states challenged Biden and his forgiveness program. They argued on the grounds that it violated the separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act. The district court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit dismissed the case. The Supreme Court stepped in to decide on it.             The Court decided 6-3 in favor of Nebraska. The Court found that the Secretary of education does not authority under the HEROES Act “…to establish a student loan forgiveness program that will cancel roughly $430 billion in dept principal and affect nearly all borrowers.” Most of the justices cited the major questions doctrine as their reaso...
Read more

Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer

-
Image
For my first blog post I am going to examine one of the latest cases SCOTUS ruled on: Acheson Hotels, LLC v. Laufer. Unbiased Case Analysis: Deborah Laufer is a disabled woman who checks hotel websites to see if they provide accessibility information required under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). She sued Acheson Hotels after discovering one of their hotel websites failed to provide accessibility information. The district court dismissed her case since she did not plan to visit the hotel. Therefore, she would suffer no injury from the hotel’s lack of accessibility information. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed the district court’s decision determining that a lack of intent to visit the hotel did not excuse Laufer from injury. The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear the case and rule on it. The Court unanimously voted to vacate the case. The Court found the case to be moot which means it has lost its relevance which no longer neces...
Read more