Re-decided holding: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as applied through the Fifteenth Amendment, requires states to draw districts that do not dilute minority voting strength, but the remedy must be race-neutral in its criteria and limited to ensuring equal electoral opportunity, not proportional representation.

1) The question is whether Alabama's 2023 congressional map, which created only one district where Black voters could elect their preferred candidate despite comprising 27% of the state's voting-age population, violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment. 2) The relevant constitutional text is the Fifteenth Amendment: 'The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.' Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, enacted under Congress's enforcement power in Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment, prohibits any voting qualification or practice that 'results in a denial or abridgment of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.' 3) At ratification (1870), the Fifteenth Amendment was understood to prohibit not only outright denial of the ballot but also devices that effectively nullified the vote of racial minorities, such as gerrymanders that packed or cracked minority populations. The Reconstruction Congress intended to dismantle the system of racial subordination that persisted after the Civil War, and the Amendment's enforcement clause gave Congress broad authority to enact prophylactic legislation. 4) The holding: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as applied through the Fifteenth Amendment, requires that when a state's redistricting plan has the effect of diluting minority voting strength—meaning that minority voters are less able than other voters to elect their preferred candidates—the state must adopt a plan that provides equal electoral opportunity. However, the remedy must be race-neutral in its criteria: the state may not use race as a predominant factor in drawing districts, but it may consider race as one factor among many to ensure compliance with Section 2. The plaintiff's alternative map need not perform 'just as well' on all state criteria, but it must be a 'reasonably configured' district that comports with traditional districting principles (compactness, contiguity, respect for communities of interest). The state's political goals, such as protecting incumbents or achieving partisan advantage, are not legitimate districting objectives when they conflict with the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on racial vote dilution. 5) What changes downstream: The district court's injunction is affirmed. Alabama must adopt a map that includes two districts where Black voters have a realistic opportunity to elect their preferred candidates, provided such districts can be drawn in a compact and contiguous manner without using race as the predominant criterion. The state's 2023 map, which intentionally reduced Black voting strength after a prior court order, is unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus. The stay is denied.