At a Glance:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Louisiana’s congressional map — which included a second majority-Black district — is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In a 6-3 decision, the Court held that the state improperly used race as the main factor when drawing the map, even though lawmakers created the district to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The ruling tightens standards for when states can consider race in redistricting and limits how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to justify majority-minority districts.
The Details:
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Louisiana’s congressional map, which included a second majority-Black district, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The 6-3 decision narrows the scope of how states may consider race when drawing district lines under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Justice Samuel Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The ruling affirms a lower court decision and remands the case. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion. Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, centered on the state’s SB8 map drawn after the 2020 census. A federal court had previously found the prior map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting strength. Louisiana then created a second majority-Black district. Challengers argued the new map impermissibly used race as the predominant factor.
The Court held that compliance with Section 2, as properly interpreted, can sometimes justify race-based districting but did not require Louisiana to draw the additional majority-minority district in this instance. “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8,” the opinion stated.
The decision updates the framework from Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Plaintiffs must now provide illustrative maps that do not use race as a predominant factor and satisfy all legitimate state districting goals, including political objectives. Evidence of racial bloc voting must control for partisan affiliation.
The opinion emphasizes that Section 2 enforces the Fifteenth Amendment’s ban on intentional racial discrimination in voting, not broader race-conscious remedies. It cautions against using Section 2 claims to repackage non-justiciable partisan gerrymandering disputes.
Louisiana must now return to a previous map or draw a new one consistent with the ruling for future elections. The decision does not eliminate Section 2 but tightens the standards for proving violations and justifying race-conscious remedies.
This marks the latest Supreme Court guidance on redistricting, following cases such as Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP. Legal experts expect it will shape redistricting cycles nationwide, including in states with significant minority populations.
