The Supreme Court will rehear arguments about the Louisiana congressional map, which could have wider ramifications for other states’ maps as mid-decade redistricting is thrust into the spotlight.
The high court on Friday requested briefs from the parties in Louisiana v. Callais, a case about whether the state’s “intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.”
The request ahead of a second round of oral arguments tees up a pivotal case in the upcoming term that could see the Voting Rights Act further narrowed by the justices and the elimination of mandatory minority-majority districts.
Second set of oral arguments over Louisiana’s second minority-majority district
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case in March, and the second set of oral arguments is expected as soon as this fall.
The case was brought by a group of non-black voters who argued that the congressional map with two black-majority districts was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Louisiana legislature adopted the map in 2024 to include a second black-majority district after a congressional map with only one black-majority district was ruled insufficient under the Voting Rights Act. A federal district court panel sided with the group of non-black voters, a ruling that was appealed to the Supreme Court.
The high court agreed to hear the case in November 2024 and was scheduled to make a decision by the end of June. On the final release day for decisions for the 2024-2025 term, the Supreme Court punted on making a ruling and announced it would rehear the case in the next term, with Justice Clarence Thomas dissenting.
During the first oral arguments in March, the conservative majority on the Supreme Court questioned whether the use of race in congressional redistricting had gone too far. The question presented to the high court was whether the lower court erred by finding that race predominated in enacting the challenged congressional map.
“Isn’t saying race is one consideration another way of saying race predominated? And how do we square that with the Fourteenth Amendment’s promise that race should play no role,” Gorsuch asked during oral arguments.
Voting Rights Act at the center of renewed scrutiny
As the justices ask for briefs on a wider question over the creation of the second black-majority district, parts of the Voting Rights Act and the 14th Amendment appear to be the center of the next round of oral arguments.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 has been used in lawsuits that have led to the creation of more minority-majority districts, including the second black-majority district at the center of the current case before the Supreme Court. The creation of black-majority districts under the Voting Rights Act aims to prevent the dilution of the voting power of minorities and allow them to elect their own representatives.
Litigation against state congressional maps citing the Voting Rights Act was brought in several southern states, including Louisiana, Alabama, and Florida, during the redistricting cycle following the 2020 Census. Because of the Democratic Party’s dominance with black voters, the creation of minority-majority districts tends to lead to Democratic-held seats in Congress.
In Louisiana, the second black-majority district resulted in Democrats picking up the redrawn seat from the GOP. Eliminating or narrowing the Voting Rights Act’s ability to create minority-majority districts could result in fewer Democratic seats in southern states.
The Supreme Court has struck down and narrowed parts of the Voting Right Act in the past, notably with the 2013 ruling in Shelby County v. Holder. In the landmark 2013 decision, the preclearance requirement, which mandated select jurisdictions get authorization from the attorney general or a panel on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia before making changes to their election laws, was found to be unconstitutional.
The high court ruled in 2023 for Alabama to create a second black-majority district, declining to narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to exclude redistricting. The 5-4 decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh join the three liberal justices in the majority.
Thomas, in the dissent, argued that Section 2 does not require “the State of Alabama to intentionally redraw its longstanding congressional districts so that black voters can control a number of seats roughly proportional to the black share of the State’s population,” adding “if it did, the Constitution would not permit it.”
SUPREME COURT TO REHEAR ARGUMENTS NEXT TERM IN LOUISIANA RACIAL REDISTRICTING CASE
The justices appear poised to revisit the constitutionality of Section 2’s use to create additional minority-majority districts.
As the Supreme Court weighs a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional map, Texas’s proposal to create new congressional maps has prompted various states to examine mid-decade redistricting efforts. The high court’s ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, which is expected by the end of June 2026, could spur more changes to congressional maps.