October Term 2014 · Docket 13-895

Did Alabama use race as the primary factor in drawing its legislative districts?

Alabama drew new legislative maps using strict racial targets. Plaintiffs claim this violates the Constitution. The state argues it acted to prevent vote dilution.

Official caption
Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Mr. Schnapper argued Shaw jurisprudence guides the current debate. He identified two constitutional claims regarding race in districting.

    General Verrilli stated Shaw claims require district-specific analysis. He argued the district court departed from this principle.

    Mr. Pildes claimed Alabama used rigid racial quotas. He stated the state used only racial data to meet targets with precision.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Alabama redrew its legislative districts using rigid racial quotas. The state claims this prevented the dilution of minority voting power. Plaintiffs argue the state used race as the primary factor in districting. This practice may violate the Equal Protection Clause.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 12, 2014.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Plaintiffs want the Court to strike down the new maps. They argue the state used race as the primary factor in districting.

The state wants the Court to uphold the new maps. It argues the maps prevent the dilution of minority voting power.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Plaintiffs argue Alabama used rigid racial quotas to design districts. They claim the state relied solely on racial demographic data to meet targets.

The state argues it moved people to avoid retrogression. It claims it maintained specific black population percentages to protect minority voting effectiveness.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Scalia asked if the state merely moved people to maintain population percentages. He questioned if this avoided retrogression.

Justice Kennedy asked if a party changing districts to undo prior actions creates a violation. He questioned the motive behind partisan balance changes.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines how states can use race in redistricting. It balances minority voting power against racial neutrality. The outcome shapes future legislative map drawing nationwide.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON