Clarence Thomas Alabama Redistricting Case: What Viral Social Media Posts Get Wrong About the Ruling
A viral social media post claims the Supreme Court’s recent decision in the Clarence Thomas Alabama redistricting case effectively “gutted” the Voting Rights Act and allows Alabama to use a race-based map for the next decade. While the case, *Allen v. Milligan*, did involve Justice Thomas dissenting from the majority opinion that struck down Alabama’s map, viral claims that the ruling “legalized racial gerrymandering” are misleading. The Supreme Court actually upheld a lower court’s ruling that Alabama’s map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting Black voting power. Justice Thomas’s solo dissent argued the VRA does not require race-based redistricting, but he was on the losing side. The net effect is that Alabama must redraw the map—not that Thomas “won” the case. Misinterpretations are spreading fast; experts urge checking the 5-4 majority decision.