Abbott v. Perez

Background

In 2011 the Texas Legislature drew new U.S. congressional and state house maps after the census. Plaintiffs representing Latino and other minority interests sued, and a three‑judge federal court drew interim maps for the 2012 elections. The Legislature adopted those interim maps in 2013. Plaintiffs continued to challenge the earlier and 2013 plans, alleging racially motivated vote‑dilution and racial gerrymandering. The district court found discriminatory intent in the 2011 work, concluded the 2013 enactments failed to cure that “taint,” and invalidated multiple congressional and state house districts.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court first held it had jurisdiction to review the three‑judge court’s orders. On the merits the Court explained the legal rule: challengers bear the burden to prove a legislature acted with discriminatory intent and courts must presume legislative good faith. The Court reversed the district court’s finding that the 2013 Legislature had to “purge” the 2011 taint, concluding the record did not prove intentional discrimination by the 2013 body. As a result the Court reversed most invalidations. It also rejected three alternative §2 “effects” holdings (CD27, HD32, HD34) but affirmed that one Texas House district, HD90, is an impermissible racial gerrymander.

Real world impact

The ruling lets Texas keep and use most of the 2013 congressional and state house maps while one district (HD90) was held unlawful and may be redrawn. The decision shifts the immediate outcome of elections and narrows which claims can force map changes. Remedial proceedings and appeals may still change specific districts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas concurred, arguing §2 should not apply to redistricting. Justice Sotomayor dissented, contending the Court lacked jurisdiction and the record showed intentional discrimination.