Allen v. Milligan
E952394
Section 2 Voting Rights Act case
United States Supreme Court case
redistricting case
voting rights case
Allen v. Milligan is a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed and strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.
All labels observed (1)
| Label | Occurrences |
|---|---|
| Allen v. Milligan canonical | 1 |
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T11897255 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
NED1
Entity disambiguation (via context triple)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Allen v. Milligan Context triple: [Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, keyCase, Allen v. Milligan]
-
A.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
McPherson v. Blacker
McPherson v. Blacker is an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to determine how its presidential electors are chosen, affirming broad state control over the Electoral College selection process.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
NED2
Entity disambiguation (via description)
gpt-5-mini-2025-08-07
Target entity: Allen v. Milligan Target entity description: Allen v. Milligan is a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed and strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.
-
A.
Stone v. Mississippi
Stone v. Mississippi is an 1880 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court held that a state cannot irrevocably surrender its police power, allowing Mississippi to prohibit a previously chartered lottery despite contractual claims.
-
B.
Washington v. Davis
Washington v. Davis is a 1976 U.S. Supreme Court case that held laws or policies with a racially disproportionate impact do not violate the Equal Protection Clause absent proof of discriminatory intent.
-
C.
Powell v. Alabama
Powell v. Alabama is a landmark 1932 U.S. Supreme Court decision that held in capital cases the Due Process Clause requires defendants be given access to effective legal counsel, especially when they are young, illiterate, or otherwise disadvantaged.
-
D.
Briggs v. Elliott
Briggs v. Elliott was a landmark federal court case from South Carolina challenging racial segregation in public schools, and it became one of the key cases consolidated into Brown v. Board of Education.
-
E.
McPherson v. Blacker
McPherson v. Blacker is an 1892 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld a state’s authority to determine how its presidential electors are chosen, affirming broad state control over the Electoral College selection process.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (49)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
Section 2 Voting Rights Act case
ⓘ
United States Supreme Court case ⓘ redistricting case ⓘ voting rights case ⓘ |
| aroseFrom | Alabama congressional redistricting ⓘ |
| citation | 599 U.S. ___ (2023) ⓘ |
| concerns |
congressional districting
ⓘ
racial vote dilution ⓘ |
| concernsSection | Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ |
| concernsStatute | Voting Rights Act of 1965 ⓘ |
| country |
United States
ⓘ
linked to:
United States of America
|
| decisionDate | 2023-06-08 ⓘ |
| defendant |
Wes Allen, Alabama Secretary of State
ⓘ
linked to:
Alabama Secretary of State
|
| dissentingJustice |
Amy Coney Barrett
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 21-1086 ⓘ |
| effect |
preserved the core framework of Section 2 vote-dilution claims
ⓘ
strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting ⓘ |
| hasJurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| holding |
Alabama must create a second majority-Black or near-majority-Black congressional district or something close to it
ⓘ
Alabama’s 2021 congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act ⓘ Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act applies to claims of racial vote dilution in redistricting ⓘ |
| issue |
whether Alabama’s congressional map unlawfully diluted Black voting strength
ⓘ
whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires creation of an additional majority-Black district in Alabama ⓘ |
| joinedMajorityJustice |
Brett M. Kavanaugh
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Ketanji Brown Jackson ⓘ Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| legalTestApplied | Gingles preconditions ⓘ |
| lowerCourtDisposition | three-judge district court preliminarily enjoined Alabama’s congressional map ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama ⓘ |
| plaintiffGroup | Black voters in Alabama ⓘ |
| reaffirmedPrecedent |
Section 2 vote-dilution jurisprudence
ⓘ
Thornburg v. Gingles ⓘ |
| rejectedArgument |
that Section 2 is unconstitutional as applied to redistricting
ⓘ
that Section 2 requires race-neutral redistricting benchmarks only ⓘ |
| relatedAreaOfLaw |
civil rights law
ⓘ
election law ⓘ |
| relatedConstitutionalProvision |
Fifteenth Amendment
ⓘ
Fourteenth Amendment ⓘ |
| stateInvolved | Alabama ⓘ |
| subsequentImpact |
influenced redistricting litigation in other states
ⓘ
prompted Alabama to redraw its congressional map ⓘ |
| SupremeCourtDisposition | affirmed the district court’s judgment ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2022 ⓘ |
| voteSplit | 5-4 ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
Instruction
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Input
Subject: Allen v. Milligan Description of subject: Allen v. Milligan is a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that reaffirmed and strengthened protections against racial vote dilution in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.
Referenced by (1)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.