League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 1, 2006 Decided June 28, 2006
Full case name	League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.
Docket no.	05-204
Citations	548 U.S. 399 (more) 126 S. Ct. 2594; 165 L. Ed. 2d 609; 2006 U.S. LEXIS 5178
Case history
Prior	Denying relief, Session v. Perry, 298 F. Supp. 2d 451 (E.D. Tex. 2004); vacating and remanding for reconsideration, Henderson v. Perry, 125 S. Ct. 351 (2004) (mem.); denying relief, 399 F. Supp. 2d 756 (E.D. Tex. 2005).
Subsequent	Remedial order, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 457 F. Supp. 2d 716 (E.D. Tex. 2006).
Holding
Texas's redrawing of District 23’s lines amounts to vote dilution violative of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, while other newly created districts remain constitutional. The judgment is affirmed in part, reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice John Roberts Associate Justices John P. Stevens · Antonin Scalia Anthony Kennedy · David Souter Clarence Thomas · Ruth Bader Ginsburg Stephen Breyer · Samuel Alito
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy (Parts II–A and III), joined by Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
Plurality	Kennedy (Parts I and IV), joined by Roberts, Alito
Plurality	Kennedy (Part II–D), joined by Souter, Ginsburg
Concur/dissent	Roberts, joined by Alito
Concur/dissent	Stevens, joined by Breyer (Parts I and II)
Concur/dissent	Scalia, joined by Thomas; Roberts, Alito (Part III)
Concur/dissent	Souter, joined by Ginsburg
Concur/dissent	Breyer
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Voting Rights Act of 1965

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006), is a Supreme Court of the United States case in which the Court ruled that only District 23 of the 2003 Texas redistricting violated the Voting Rights Act.^[1] The Court refused to throw out the entire plan, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to state a sufficient claim of partisan gerrymandering.

The opinion requires lawmakers to adjust congressional district boundaries in comport with the Court's ruling, though the ruling ultimately did not substantially reduce or reverse the Republican gains as a result of the redistricting in Texas.^[2] The Court also declined to resolve a dispute over whether partisan gerrymandering claims present nonjusticiable political questions.