The reason the district court found intentional discrimination even after affording such deference to the Alabama Legislature is simple: The record is crystal clear.
Editor's note · Context
Dissenting opinion on Alabama's congressional map ruling.
Share
More from Sonia Sotomayor
After today, it is hard to call Alabama’s cynical gambit anything other than a success, and the Court’s rewarding of Alabama’s behavior anything other than a blow to the rule of law.
The majority ignores that 'arrival' and 'arriving' in the immigration context have never focused on the precise location of a noncitizen’s feet.
Today, the Court discards that democratic regime in favor of one that distorts the structure of Government to fit the majority’s theory of unitary, total executive control.
This Court has previously recognized that immigration statutes and procedures should not be construed to ‘create a perverse incentive to enter at an unlawful rather than a lawful location. Yet, the majority’s construction does exactly that.





