Cite as: 581 U. S. ____ (2017) 1 Opinion of ALITO, J. 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 ALITO, with whom THE CHIEF JUSTICE and JUSTICE KENNEDY join, concurring in the judgment in part and dissenting in part. A precedent of this Court should not be treated like a disposable household item—say, a paper plate or napkin— to be used once and then tossed in the trash. But that is what the Court does today in its decision regarding North Carolina’s 12th Congressional District: The Court junks a rule adopted in a prior, remarkably similar challenge to this very same congressional district. In Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U. S. 234 (2001) (Cromartie II ), the Court considered the constitutionality of the version of District 12 that was adopted in 1997. Id., at 238. That district had the same basic shape as the district now before us, and the challengers argued that the legislature’s predominant reason for adopting this configuration was race. Ibid. The State responded that its motive was not race but politics. Id., at 241. Its objective, the State insisted, was to create a district in which the Democratic candidate would win. See ibid.; Brief for State Appellants in Easley v. Cromartie, O. T. 2000, Nos. 99–1864, 99– 1865, p. 25. Rejecting that explanation, a three-judge court found that the legislature’s predominant motive was racial, specifically to pack African-Americans into District