Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas dissented in Thursday's 5-4 ruling on Allen v. Milligan.
He wrote a nearly-50-page dissent about his disagreement with the ruling.
Thursday's ruling found that Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act's ban on racial gerrymandering.
Top editors give you the stories you want — delivered right to your inbox each weekday. Loading Something is loading. Thanks for signing up! Access your favorite topics in a personalized feed while you're on the go. download the app Email address By clicking ‘Sign up’, you agree to receive marketing emails from Insider as well as other partner offers and accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy
Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a scathing, 48-page dissent in the court's ruling that Alabama violated a ban on racial gerrymandering.
The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Thursday, holding a lower federal court's decision that Alabama violated the Voting Rights Act with congressional districts that discriminate against Black voters in the state by largely clumping them together into one district.
The surprise ruling prevented the court from gutting the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, joined the Supreme Court's liberal-leaning justices in the ruling.
Thomas was one of four conservative justices who opposed Thursday's ruling.
In his dissenting opinion, Thomas wrote that the court's decision has turned Section 2 — the part of the Voting Rights Act that bans gerrymandering based on race — into "nothing more than a racial entitlement to roughly proportional control of elective offices — limited only by feasibility — wherever different racial groups consistently prefer different candidates."
Thomas said the Voting Rights Act doesn't require Alabama "intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State's population."
"If it did, the Constitution would not permit it," he wrote.
More dramatically, Thomas said he would have ruled that the Voting Rights Act had no power at all to prevent state legislators from racially gerrymandering districts — grouping minority votes along racial lines to dilute their power.
Thomas said he's "long been convinced" that the Voting Rights Act only regulates voters' ability to actually get to the ballot or cast it.
The gerrymandered maps were used in the 2022 election. Republicans won all six non-Black-majority congressional districts. The sole Black-majority district went to Democrats.
Alabama will now need to redraw its electoral maps.
code_archeologist on June 8th, 2023 at 19:43 UTC »
Clarence Thomas, a man who benefitted from the liberalization of racial policies in the United States, which include the voting rights act, who has been able to climb to sit on the highest court in America... arguably one of the most powerful African Americans of the past few decades.
And what does he do?
Runs around trying to smack down all of the people climbing up behind him like it was a perverse game of Whack-A-Mole.
brathor on June 8th, 2023 at 19:41 UTC »
Of course he did. The fact that Thomas replaced Thurgood Marshall on SCOTUS should be a deep source of shame for every American.
DirtyReseller on June 8th, 2023 at 19:35 UTC »
What a fucking monster.