U.S. Supreme Court to decide Louisiana redistricting dispute with national implications

The Supreme Court is poised to decide a high-stakes redistricting dispute in Louisiana that could reshape how states draw congressional maps and clarify the permissible role of race in the redistricting process.

The case arises from Louisiana’s post–2020 census efforts to redraw its congressional districts and places the Court at the center of a longstanding legal tension: how to reconcile the Voting Rights Act’s protections for minority voters with the Constitution’s limits on race-based government decision-making.

Legal Background of rulings, vetoes, and remediation plans

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) bars electoral practices that result in racial minority voters having “less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” Courts have long understood this provision to prohibit congressional maps that unlawfully dilute the voting strength of minority voters. 

In 2022, the Louisiana legislature enacted a new congressional map that included only one majority-Black district, despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of the state’s population. The map became law after the legislature overrode a gubernatorial veto.

That same day, two groups of plaintiffs filed suit in federal court, alleging that the map violated Section 2 by failing to create a second majority-Black district. A three-judge panel in the Middle District of Louisiana consolidated the cases and, in June 2022, ordered the state to adopt a remedial plan with an additional majority-Black district. After a series of appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling.

The Louisiana legislature convened to draw a new map in 2024 and created a second majority-Black district. The central dispute at that stage was not whether a second such district should exist, but how it should be drawn.

Within weeks, a separate group of voters who self-identify as “non-African American” challenged the 2024 map in the Western District of Louisiana. They argued that the legislature had allowed race to predominate over traditional redistricting principles—such as compactness and respect for political boundaries—in violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. A three-judge panel agreed and barred the map’s use in future elections.

The Supreme Court consolidated the cases and agreed to resolve both challenges: the challenge to the 2022 map under the Voting Rights Act and the challenge to the 2024 map on constitutional grounds.

Questions before the Supreme Court

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court is confronted with a direct tension between two legal commands: the VRA’s mandate to protect minority voting rights and the Constitution’s limits on race-based decision-making by the state.

At oral argument earlier this year, challengers to the 2024 map contended that race unlawfully predominated in the legislature’s redistricting decisions, pointing to both direct evidence and circumstantial indicators of race-based line drawing.

Defenders of the map countered that the lower courts improperly treated Louisiana’s effort to comply with Section 2 as dispositive evidence of racial predominance, effectively penalizing the state for attempting to follow federal law.

Louisiana, for its part, argued that it has been placed in an untenable position and is exposed to liability no matter which path it takes. A map with only one majority-Black district triggers Section 2 challenges, while a map with two invites constitutional claims of racial gerrymandering.

The Court is expected to resolve several closely related questions, including when compliance with Section 2 crosses the line into unconstitutional racial decision-making and how much consideration of race is permissible when a state redraws districts to remedy a Voting Rights Act violation.

Potential for National Impact

Legal experts predict that the decision will have far-reaching implications for redistricting nationwide.

Several conservative justices have long expressed skepticism about the Voting Rights Act’s modern, results-based framework, and this case may provide an opportunity to narrow – or fundamentally reconsider – it. In prior opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas has argued that Section 2 pressures states into racial sorting that conflicts with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection. 

He has urged the Court to reconsider its Section 2 precedents altogether, warning that they entrench race as a central feature of electoral decision-making rather than advancing what he has described as a genuinely colorblind legal system.

Race-conscious remedies under review

Justice Thomas is not alone. Justice Samuel Alito has criticized the Court’s Section 2 jurisprudence as forcing states into unconstitutional racial classifications, while Justice Neil Gorsuch has questioned whether the statute even authorizes private lawsuits — a procedural issue that, if adopted, could sharply limit future Voting Rights Act challenges.

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, while joining the Court’s recent Section 2 rulings, has cautioned that race-conscious remedies “cannot extend indefinitely into the future.” And Chief Justice John Roberts has repeatedly warned against embedding race too deeply into election law, even as he has acknowledged Congress’s authority to address discrimination.

Taken together, those views suggest that Section 2’s scope—and possibly its long-term viability—remains unsettled.

As the 2026 midterm elections approach, election officials, lawmakers, and advocacy groups are watching closely. The Court’s ruling could determine not only who draws the lines, but how—and, ultimately, who gets to vote in districts that meaningfully reflect their communities. 

The Court heard oral argument on October 15, with a decision expected by the end of June.