The Supreme Court on Monday weighed whether a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority-black districts for the first time in decades is a lawful effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act or an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
At the heart of the case is a tension between two key legal standards: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which instructs states to avoid any unnecessary dilutions to minority groups’ voting powers, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which bars race-based decision-making without compelling justification.
“We need the Court to clarify what the rules are for redistricting,” Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement before oral arguments Monday.
I’m here at the United States Supreme Court to defend Louisiana’s Congressional map. #SCOTUS
Listen live here: https://t.co/HOqEPNZSNT pic.twitter.com/PdEh40araq
— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) March 24, 2025
Louisiana’s current map was adopted after a federal court ruled its original post-2020 census map, with just one black-majority district out of six, violated federal law. But after lawmakers added a second majority-black district, a new group of plaintiffs sued, calling the revised lines an “odious racial gerrymander.”
During Monday’s oral arguments, several conservative justices expressed concern over whether the use of race in redistricting has gone too far. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said race-based remedies must have an “endpoint,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether any use of race in mapmaking is inherently unconstitutional.
“Certainly politics played a role in this district, but didn’t race?” Gorsuch asked attorneys for counsel opposing the drawn map. “Isn’t saying race was one consideration another way of saying race predominated? And how do we square that with the 14th Amendment’s promise that race should play no role in our laws?”
Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested it would be significant if the high court were to do anything substantial to voting rights precedent in a case such as this one, given that lower courts consistently kept Louisiana from adopting its post-2020 census map.
Plaintiffs “have a decision by a lower court that they’re likely to succeed. They have an appeal of a temporary restraining order where that court says they’re likely to win, and we have a merits panel who looks at it and says they’re likely to win. That’s not enough to provide a good faith basis for believing that they need to comply with Section Two?” Sotomayor asked counsel for the state.
Louisiana officials argued they are stuck between conflicting legal obligations and political realities, including pressure to preserve Republican power in the House, such as Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) seat.
“It’s a no-win scenario,” said Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, adding that constant litigation leaves states, courts, and voters in limbo.
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO WEIGH DISPUTE OVER LOUISIANA’S TWO MAJORITY-BLACK DISTRICTS
Supporters of the second majority-black district argue it is warranted in part because at least a third of the state’s population is black, and therefore the state’s black residents need at least two congressional representatives. But detractors say that the consideration of race is inherently political and an affront to the Equal Protection Clause.
The high court’s decision, expected by June, could clarify how states balance race and politics in redistricting — a volatile issue with major implications for minority representation and control of Congress in future elections.