Louisiana v. Callais

Background

The State of Louisiana passed a new congressional map called SB8 after a lower court had required an additional majority-Black district to avoid diluting Black votes under the Voting Rights Act. The Fifth Circuit had vacated that earlier order. Under SB8, two of six districts are majority-Black, and plaintiffs sued saying the second majority-Black district is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge federal court found the map violated the Constitution’s equal protection guarantee and issued relief. Louisiana appealed directly to the Court, and the case was fully briefed and argued.

Reasoning

The immediate question is whether the new map is an unlawful racial gerrymander and how to reconcile that claim with the Voting Rights Act’s requirement, as some courts have read it, to create majority-minority districts when voting is racially polarized. The Court declined to issue a final decision now and instead restored the cases for reargument. Justice Thomas dissented from that scheduling decision and urged the Court to decide the dispute now, arguing that the Court must resolve a deep conflict between the way courts have read Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection against race-based districting.

Real world impact

Because the Court set the cases for reargument, the legal status of Louisiana’s map remains unsettled for now. That delay leaves voters, election officials, and candidates without a final answer about how districts will be drawn for upcoming elections. Justice Thomas warned that unresolved conflicts about how the Voting Rights Act is applied could force courts to require race-based maps in many places, while he would prefer a prompt constitutional ruling.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Thomas’s dissent explains why he would decide the cases now and reconsider how Section 2 is interpreted to avoid forcing race-based remedies that, in his view, conflict with equal protection.