Does §2 of the Voting Rights Act require Alabama to create a second majority-minority district despite potential constitutional concerns?

Alabama’s 2021 congressional districting plan was preliminarily enjoined under §2 of the Voting Rights Act because it splintered one community of interest, the Black Belt, while keeping together another, the Gulf Coast. In 2023, Alabama passed a new plan uniting the Black Belt counties into as few districts as possible. Even so, the district court permanently enjoined the 2023 plan because it did not racially divide the Gulf to place more black voters from “Black Belt counties in a majority-Black district.” App.345. The court further held that the State’s refusal to intentionally create a second majority-minority district constituted intentional racial discrimination. The court dismissed the notion that the State was trying to avoid gerrymandering claims, though such claims were pending and others threatened; drew racial inferences from race-neutral legislative findings; held that the preliminary ruling on the 2021 Plan eliminated Alabama’s politics defense for the 2023 Plan; and treated efforts to persuade the court that the 2023 Plan was not racially dilutive as evidence of dilutive intent. The questions presented are: 1. Does §2 require Alabama to segregate a conceded community of interest to combine black voters from that community with black voters elsewhere to form a majority-black district? 2. Whether §2 can require Alabama to intentionally create a second majority-minority district without violating the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution? 3. Does §2 create a privately enforceable right? 4. Did Alabama violate the Fourteenth Amendment by declining to draw a race-based plan? ii PARTIES AND PROCEEDINGS Petitioners are Wes Allen, in his official capacity as Secretary of State for Alabama, and State Senator Steve Livingston and State Representative Chris Pringle, in their official capacities as Senate Chair and House Chair of the Alabama Permanent Legislative Committee on Reapportionment, respectively. Petitioners were defendants before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. Respondents are Marcus Caster, Lakeisha Chestnut, Bobby Lee Debouse, Benjamin Jones, Rodney Allen Love, Manasseh Powell, and Wendell Thomas. All respondents were plaintiffs before the district court. The relevant orders are: Caster v. Allen , No. 2:21-cv-1536, 2025 WL 1643532 (N.D. Ala. May 8, 2025) (findings of fact, conclusions of law, judgment, and injunction). Caster v. Allen , No. 2:21-cv-1536 (N.D. Ala. Aug. 7, 2025) (final judgment and injunction). Petitioners filed a notice of appeal after the district court issued each of the above orders. The Eleventh Circuit cases are: Caster v. Allen , No. 25-11915 (docketed Jun. 6, 2025); Caster v. Allen , No. 25-12802 (docketed Aug. 14, 2025).