Louisiana v. Callais
24-109
| SCOTUS | Jun 27, 2025Background
- These cases concern a challenge to the constitutionality of Louisiana's recent congressional redistricting map (Senate Bill 8), enacted to add a second majority-black district in response to prior court orders under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA).
- Plaintiffs argue that the new map constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, as the new district stretches 250 miles through various metropolitan areas, targeting Black populations.
- The district court found for the plaintiffs, concluding the map violated the Equal Protection Clause.
- Louisiana and intervenor-appellants directly appealed to the Supreme Court, which had mandatory jurisdiction over the matter.
- The Supreme Court restored the cases to the calendar for reargument, declining to issue a substantive decision.
- Justice Thomas authored a dissent, criticizing the delay and urging the Court to address the conflict between Section 2 of the VRA (as interpreted) and the Fourteenth Amendment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Constitutionality of Louisiana’s new districting map (SB8) | SB8 constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander | SB8 was enacted to comply with VRA | No decision; reargument set |
| Whether VRA §2 compliance justifies race-based districting | §2 as interpreted requires unlawful racial proportionality | State required by federal order to comply with §2 | No decision; reargument set |
| Tension between VRA §2 and Fourteenth Amendment | VRA-as-applied compels unconstitutional racial districting | State must follow both legal mandates | No decision; reargument set |
| Obligation for Supreme Court to promptly resolve such cases | Immediate resolution needed for clarity in election law | Court should proceed with caution | No decision; reargument set |
Key Cases Cited
- Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (Constitution is supreme over statutes)
- Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (Racial classifications in voting require close scrutiny)
- Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (Racial classifications are only permissible under narrow circumstances)
- Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (Race-based remedies require a close connection to specific instances of past discrimination)
- Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (Court’s interpretation of VRA §2 and its implications for race-based districting)
- Abbott v. Perez, 585 U.S. 579 (Tension noted between VRA and Equal Protection Clause)
- Alabama Legislative Black Caucus v. Alabama, 575 U.S. 254 (Dissent criticizing voting rights jurisprudence)
- Holder v. Hall, 512 U.S. 874 (Judicial opinions examining §2 interpretation and its issues)