Whether the Equal Protection Clause prohibits a state legislature from drawing congressional districts that allegedly discriminate against minority voters by intentionally 'cracking' their voting power across districts

No question identified. : 2 congressional districting plan. See id. at 1. The three-judge court entered an “Injunction and Order” that permanently enjoined use of Alabama’s 2023 Plan, finding that the plan violated § 2 of the Voting Rights Act and amounted to intentional discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. See id. at 1, 16. Applicants filed their notices of appeal to this Court on June 6, 2025. See Exs. B & C. This Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1253, 2101(b). This same application is being filed in both the Singleton and Milligan appeals. The jurisdictional statements are due on August 5, 2025. See S. Ct. R. 18.3. With the extension, the jurisdictional statements would be due on September 4, 2025. Consistent with this Court’s Rules 18.3, 30.2, and 30.3, this application is filed at least 10 days before the jurisdictional statements are due. An extension is justified for the following reasons. 1. After Allen v. Milligan , 599 U.S. 1 (2023), Alabama enacted new congressional districts to address, among other things, this Court’s observations about how Alabama’s redistricting plan treated different communities of interest differently. Id. at 22 (observing there was a “split community of interest in both” Alabama’s 2021 Plan and in Plaintiffs’ illustrative plans). After Plaintiffs had argued that Alabama’s purportedly ‘“inconsistent treatment’ of Black and White communities [wa]s ‘significant evidence’ of a § 2 violation,” Br. of Milligan Respondents 39, No. 211086 (U.S. filed July 11, 2022) (quoting Johnson v. De Grandy , 512 U.S. 997, 1015 (1994)), Alabama’s 2023 Plan reunited Alabama’s historic Black Belt region into the fewest number of districts possible—addressing what Plaintiffs had called the “heart 3 of the case,” id. at 5. Even so, Plaintiffs sued to enjoin that 2023 Plan. A three-judge district court issued a preliminary injunction and substituted court-drawn districts for the 2024 congressional elections while the parties litigated the lawfulness of the 2023 Plan on the merits. 2. The three-judge district court has now permanently enjoined Alabama’s 2023 Plan. The court concluded the plan violates § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The court further concluded that the Legislature’s enactment of the 2023 Plan amounted to intentional discrimination, in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The district court recognized that its intentional discrimination holding was “unlike the typical allegation” that the Legislature “considered race too much when it placed district lines.” Ex. A at 499. Rather, in the court’s view, the Legislature “cracked” black voters by declining to split Mobile County to combine “Black Alabamians in Mobile” with black voters from other communities on the other side of the State. Id. 3. Based on the intentional discrimination finding, the Milligan Plaintiffs have moved to subject Alabama to preclearance under § 3 of the Voting Rights Act. The district court has scheduled a hearing for July 29, 2025, to consider Plaintiffs’ bail-in request. Milligan , No. 2:21-cv-1530, ECF504; see also Ex. A at 16 (explaining that the court will “conduct remedial proceedings expeditiously”). 4. Applicants’ jurisdictional statements are presently due on August 5, 2025. A 30-day extension of that deadline would make it more likely that Applicants could file the jurisdictional statements related to the district court’s liability determinations around the same time as any jurisdictional statement regarding the district 4 court’s remedial determinations. Briefing the liability issues and any remedial issues around the same time would promote judicial economy. 5. Additionally, the district court’s § 2 and constitutional holdings in this redistricting case may relate to issues to be addressed at re-argument in Louisiana v. Callais , No. 24-109. If the anticipated order posing questions for re-argument issues before September 4, 2025, then an extension will allow Applicants to address any