Barrenlens
@barrenlens.bsky.social
183 followers 98 following 3K posts
Dabbles at photography, writing and other things. Milwaukee Brewers fan. Green Bay Packers fan. University of Wisconsin Alum. There are good reasons for anonymity but I understand the concern. barrenlens.smugmug.com
![Nothing in the District Court's Fourteenth Amendment analysis is affected by this Court's opinion in Callais. Most obviously, Callais changed the legal standard for vote-dilu-tion claims under §2. See 608 U.S., at _ (slip op., at 19) ("[We must understand exactly what §2 of the Voting Rights Act demands"). It said not a word about the standard for Fourteenth Amendment intentional discrimination claims like the one that the District Court decided on remand in round two.
Callais also insisted that this Court's prior decision in Allen remains good law. See id., at _ (slip op., at 36) ("[W]e have not overruled Allen"). These cases are, of course, Al-len. So if Allen is good law anywhere, then it must be good law here. This Court's finding of racially discriminatory vote dilution is an inextricable, permanent feature of this case, and Alabama's willful decision to respond by entrenching rather than remedying that dilution is, as the District Court correctly recognized, evidence of discriminatory intent.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:36eqtmzysqf7wsslczw4uxcd/bafkreig356dn4ypbahujl3z6jswdp75xrrujbjdp2cu43lkwe4cavmxg2i)
