The Supreme Court will hear arguments Wednesday in a case that could end the use of race to draw congressional districts.
Louisiana's congressional map is at the center of a protracted legal fight that highlights the “conflicting claims” of Section 2 of voting rights. Actwhich prohibits election practices that result in citizens being “denied or abridged” from voting on the basis of race, and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
“Racial redistricting under Section 2 is fundamentally unconstitutional because it is inherently based on a racial stereotype: all voters of a given race must—by virtue of their racial class—think alike, share the same interests, and favor the same political candidates,” the state said in a statement. argued in a court document. “This racial stereotype is in direct contradiction to the precedent of this court.”
The Louisiana case has already been tried court deadline, but the judges postponed the decision, rescheduling case for the second round of oral arguments. In August they asked parties must submit reports on whether “the intentional creation of a second minority-majority district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.”
Louisiana congressional map, Black-majority 2nd District highlighted in pink. (Photo: Screenshot/ SB8 Louisiana State Senator Glen Womack)
The legal battle over the state's map began in 2022 with an outcry from a group of black voters who objected to the inclusion of only one county with a black majority. Forcibly by court decision order return to drawing council, legislative body past new map in January 2024 that made District 6 the second majority black district. (RELATED: Supreme Court could deal Democrats a huge blow if they ever take back the house)
A group of “non-African American” voters promptly sued over the 2024 map, claiming it was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The panel of three judges agreed: finding the new map illegally made race the “predominant factor” in its creation.
Republican Sen. Glen Womack, who drafted the 2024 version, argued at the time that “politics, not race, drove this map.” He wanted to protect prominent House members from Louisiana such as House Speaker Mike Johnson, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise and Republican Rep. Julia Letlow. according to Louisiana porthole.
“The amount of time, money and resources Louisiana has devoted to ensuring that black and white voters are sufficiently discriminated against is astronomical,” the state said in a statement. wrote in its August review. “And for what purpose? If something doesn't change, the whole cycle will repeat itself after the 2030 census.”
Race-based voting harms voters, states and the court system by forcing courts to “pick winners and losers based on race” and effectively turning a state's map into a “recommendation” that must be approved by an Article III judge, Louisiana argues in its filing. Ultimately, this harm causes “direct damage to the very status of our nation.”
“Our commitment to equal justice under the law is one of the proudest boasts of our democracy,” the state wrote. “However passionate our commitment may be, it will always ring hollow as long as our governments sanction racial discrimination against their citizens and as long as our courts demand such discrimination.”
🚨The landmark Louisiana redistricting case, Louisiana v. Calle, has been filed with the U.S. Supreme Court.
Our Constitution prohibits the segregation of Americans into congressional districts based on the color of their skin—and Louisiana wants no part of this disgusting system. We did it… pic.twitter.com/Rr5ywcHaeb
— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) August 27, 2025
Ministry of Justice (MOJ) argued in a brief supporting Louisiana that efforts to redistrict along racial lines under Section 2 are “the consequence of a misguided application of the vague framework for vote dilution claims” set forth in the 1986 Supreme Court case Thornburgh v. Gingles. solution.
To prove a vote dilution claim, the Supreme Court in Gingles stated a three-part test: The minority group must demonstrate that it is “large and geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single-member district,” is politically cohesive, and that “the white majority votes in sufficient bloc fashion” that it can defeat the minority's preferred candidate.
“Too often, Section 2 is used as a form of selective affirmative action on the basis of race to undermine the government's constitutional pursuit of policy goals,” the DOJ argues. “Such an abuse of Section 2 is unconstitutional.”
Louisiana Secretary of State asked the court should “make a decision as soon as possible – ideally in December or early January.” The primary election is scheduled for April 18, 2026, with qualifying dates in January.
Justice Clarence Thomas wrote said in June that the court “has an obligation to resolve such issues expeditiously,” disagreeing with the court's decision to rehear the Louisiana case.
“These cases present the Court with a choice: it can allow clear racial gerrymandering under the auspices of § 2 compliance, or it can find that, as the Court has interpreted the statute, a § 2 violation is not sufficient to justify a race-based remedy,” Thomas wrote. “This decision should be simple.”
In its 2023 Allen v. Milligan ruling, the Supreme Court found 5-4 that Alabama's congressional map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Although Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the majority, he mentioned the argument put forward by Thomas that “the power to make redistricting along racial lines cannot be extended indefinitely into the future.”
Roberts, who author the landmark 2023 decision, Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, overturning racial preferences in college admissions, Milligan joined the majority, although he expressed strong opposition to race-based practices.
“It is a dirty business to divide us along racial lines,” Roberts wrote in a partial 2006 report. disagreement in a redistricting case.
All content produced by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and unbiased news service, is available free of charge to any legitimate news publisher that can reach a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter's byline and DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our policies or partnerships with us, please contact [email protected].
