Cite as: 581 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 THOMAS, J., concurring SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES _________________ No. 15–1262 _________________ ROY COOPER, GOVERNOR OF NORTH CAROLINA, ET AL., APPELLANTS v. DAVID HARRIS, ET AL. ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA [May 22, 2017] JUSTICE THOMAS, concurring. I join the opinion of the Court because it correctly applies our precedents under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq. I write briefly to explain the additional grounds on which I would affirm the three-judge District Court and to note my agreement, in particular, with the Court’s clear-error analysis. As to District 1, I think North Carolina’s concession that it created the district as a majority-black district is by itself sufficient to trigger strict scrutiny. See Brief for Appellants 44; see also, e.g., Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Bd. of Elections, 580 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (slip op., at 1–2) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). I also think that North Carolina cannot satisfy strict scrutiny based on its efforts to comply with §2 of the VRA. See ante, at 12. In my view, §2 does not apply to redistricting and therefore cannot justify a racial gerrymander. See Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 922–923 (1994) (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). As to District 12, I agree with the Court that the District Court did not clearly err when it determined that race was North Carolina’s predominant motive in drawing the district. See ante, at 21. This is the same conclusion I