86 F.4th 574
5th Cir.2023Background:
- After the 2020 census, the Louisiana Legislature enacted a 2022 congressional map (H.B. 1) that preserved six districts and left only one majority-Black district (the 2nd). Governor Edwards vetoed the map as violating Section 2; the Legislature overrode the veto.
- Two plaintiff groups sued Secretary of State Kyle Ardoin, alleging the enacted map diluted Black voting strength (packing and cracking) and seeking a preliminary injunction to stop use of H.B. 1 in 2022 and to require a Section 2–compliant remedial map.
- The district court held a five-day expedited evidentiary hearing, found plaintiffs likely to succeed under the Gingles framework, and issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Legislature to enact a remedial plan for 2022; the Fifth Circuit initially denied a stay, but the Supreme Court stayed the injunction pending resolution of Milligan.
- After the Supreme Court’s Milligan decision, the Fifth Circuit reviewed the preliminary injunction: it concluded the district court’s factual findings were not clearly erroneous and that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on Section 2 merits, but that the preliminary injunction was no longer necessary.
- The panel vacated the preliminary injunction, remanded for further proceedings, and gave the Louisiana Legislature until January 15, 2024 to enact a new congressional plan (or notify the district court it will not do so); if no new plan is adopted, the district court must proceed to trial on H.B. 1 and, if invalid, order a remedial map for 2024.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act creates a private right of action | §2 enforcement has long been pursued by individuals; plaintiffs are "aggrieved persons" entitled to sue | State questioned private enforcement and raised sovereign-immunity concerns | Court held plaintiffs may sue under §2; OCA–Greater Houston and statutory text support waiver of sovereign immunity |
| Whether plaintiffs showed a likelihood of success under Gingles — first precondition (numerosity/compactness) | Black population is sufficiently numerous and geographically compact; plaintiffs’ illustrative maps produce a reasonably configured second majority-Black district | State argued illustrative maps are not compact, combine disparate communities of interest based only on race | Court found no clear error in district court’s fact findings that minority population is compact and illustrative maps are reasonably configured |
| Whether plaintiffs’ illustrative maps were unlawful racial gerrymanders (racial predominance) | Mapmakers permissibly considered race to show a §2 remedy is feasible; race was considered alongside traditional criteria | State argued race predominated and mapmakers used an explicit racial target (50% BVAP), producing racial gerrymanders | Court held use of an explicit BVAP target in illustrative maps did not automatically establish racial predominance; district court’s finding that maps were not racial gerrymanders was not clearly erroneous |
| Third Gingles precondition (racially polarized voting and crossover voting) | White bloc voting is legally significant under the enacted plan; illustrative possibilities of crossover districts do not defeat claims against the challenged plan | State argued evidence showed effective white crossover voting (so a remedy is unnecessary) and plaintiffs relied on hypothetical districts | Court held analysis properly focused on the challenged legislative plan; district court’s findings that whites usually defeat minority-preferred candidates under H.B. 1 were not clearly erroneous |
| Totality/proportionality, equities, and remedy (mootness and legislative opportunity) | Proportionality and Zimmer factors weigh for relief; urgency justified preliminary injunction earlier | State warned against imposing proportionality, urged Purcell and mootness, and requested the Legislature be given time to act | Court treated proportionality as one Zimmer factor (not dispositive), found preliminary injunction no longer necessary given timing, vacated it, and gave Legislature until Jan. 15, 2024 to act before the district court proceeds to trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986) (establishes three preconditions and Gingles framework for §2 vote-dilution claims)
- Milligan v. Merrill, 599 U.S. 1 (2023) (recent Supreme Court guidance on Gingles, racial predominance, and illustrative maps)
- Bartlett v. Strickland, 556 U.S. 1 (2009) (clarifies 50% BVAP threshold for a majority-minority district under Gingles)
- Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013) (discusses private enforcement under the Voting Rights Act)
- League of United Latin Am. Citizens v. Perry, 548 U.S. 399 (2006) (discusses compactness, communities of interest, and proportionality in §2 analysis)
- Cooper v. Harris, 581 U.S. 285 (2017) (addresses racial predominance and the standard for racial gerrymandering)
- Purcell v. Gonzalez, 549 U.S. 1 (2006) (per curiam) (principle limiting last-minute court changes to election rules)
- Students for Fair Admissions v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (affirmative-action decisions discussed by the State in arguing about race-conscious decisionmaking)
- OCA–Greater Houston v. Texas, 867 F.3d 604 (5th Cir. 2017) (Fifth Circuit precedent holding the VRA validly abrogates state sovereign immunity)