Highlights

• The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in Louisiana v. Callais, which challenges Louisiana’s congressional map that includes two majority-Black districts
• Conservative justices questioned whether the Voting Rights Act can require the use of race in drawing district maps indefinitely
• The case stems from a 2022 lawsuit where Black voters won in a case over Louisiana’s original map
• Louisiana’s Attorney General now argues that using race “in any form” when redistricting violates the Constitution
• A ruling against the current map could eliminate up to 19 Democratic congressional seats in Congress

What Louisianians Need to Know About the Supreme Court’s Louisiana Voting Rights Case

A case heard this week could reshape how political maps are drawn across the country

WASHINGTON, D.C. (KPEL News) — On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that started here in Louisiana and could gut the Voting Rights Act—the 1965 civil rights law that has protected minority voters for six decades.

Get our free mobile app

How We Got Here

In 2022, Louisiana’s legislature drew a new congressional map after the 2020 census. Black voters make up roughly one-third of the state’s population, but the map created only one majority-Black district out of six total seats.

A group of Black voters, led by Dr. Press Robinson, filed a lawsuit—Robinson v. Landry—arguing the map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. They said Louisiana “packed and cracked” Black voters. Packing means concentrating minority voters into a single district to minimize their influence elsewhere. Cracking means splitting them across multiple districts where they can’t elect their preferred candidates.

After a five-day hearing with 21 witnesses, the federal courts agreed. A district court and the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act. The courts ordered Louisiana to draw a new map with a second district where Black voters could elect their preferred representative.

In January 2024, Louisiana lawmakers passed Senate Bill 8, creating a second majority-Black congressional district. That district elected U.S. Representative Cleo Fields, a Democrat who previously represented a majority-Black district in Congress during the 1990s.

Then came another lawsuit. A group of voters calling themselves “non-African American,” led by Phillip Callais, sued. They argued Louisiana’s new map was an unconstitutional “racial gerrymander”—that lawmakers relied too heavily on race when drawing district lines, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A divided three-judge federal panel agreed with the Callais plaintiffs and struck down the map. But the Supreme Court allowed Louisiana to use the map for the 2024 elections. When the justices heard arguments in March 2025, they didn’t issue a decision by the end of the term. Instead, they ordered a second round of arguments on a bigger question: whether Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act itself is constitutional.

Understanding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act

The Voting Rights Act was passed in 1965 to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment’s guarantee that the right to vote cannot be denied based on race. In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to prohibit any voting practice that “results in” discrimination. You don’t have to prove lawmakers intended to discriminate—just that the end result denies minority voters equal access to the political process.

In 1986, the Supreme Court established the “Gingles test” in Thornburg v. Gingles. Plaintiffs must prove three things:

1. The minority group must be large and compact enough to make up a majority in a reasonably configured district
2. The minority group must be politically cohesive, meaning they vote similarly
3. The majority must vote as a bloc to usually defeat the minority’s preferred candidates—called “racially polarized voting”

If all three conditions exist, courts look at the “totality of circumstances,” including the history of discrimination in the area, whether voting in elections is racially polarized, and whether minority candidates have won office.

Section 2 has been the main tool for challenging alleged discriminatory voting practices since the Supreme Court gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in 2013’s Shelby County v. Holder decision.

Who Are the Parties Before the Court?

The Robinson Appellants (Black voters and organizations): Dr. Press Robinson and other Black Louisiana voters, represented by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the American Civil Liberties Union, and other civil rights organizations. They’re defending Louisiana’s map with two majority-Black districts. Janai Nelson, President of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, argued their case.

The State of Louisiana: First defended the two-district map but switched positions after the Court ordered reargument. Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill now argues that using race “in any form” when redistricting is unconstitutional. Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga represented the state.

The Callais Appellees (white voters): Phillip Callais and other self-described “non-African American” voters argue that Louisiana’s map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Edward D. Greim represented them.

The Trump Administration: Filed as a friend of the court supporting the Callais plaintiffs. Principal Deputy Solicitor General Hashim M. Mooppan represented the administration.

What the Justices Asked

Can Race Be Used Indefinitely?

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to uphold the Voting Rights Act two years ago in a similar Alabama case, kept pressing on whether Section 2 can require the use of race in drawing districts forever. In other areas, like college admissions, the Court has ruled that race-based remedies must have time limits.

Janai Nelson, arguing for the Black voters, said Section 2 limits itself. As racially polarized voting and residential segregation decrease, fewer plaintiffs will meet the tough Gingles test. She said Section 2 cases have dropped by 50 percent in the past decade.

Nelson also separated the statute from remedies under it by arguing that “Section 2 is not a remedy in and of itself. It is the mechanism by which the law determines whether a remedy is necessary.”

Any race-conscious remedy ordered by a court would have a time limit, but the statute that checks for violations doesn’t need one.

Intent vs. Results

Justice Samuel Alito and others questioned whether Section 2’s “results test,” which doesn’t require proof of discriminatory intent, goes too far.

Louisiana’s Aguiñaga argued that Congress never documented intentional discrimination in districting when it amended Section 2 in 1982, so race-based redistricting can’t be justified as a remedy.

Justice Elena Kagan pushed back hard. She explained that Section 2 addresses discriminatory effects, not just intent. Congress passed the results test after a 1980 Supreme Court decision made it too hard for minority voters to challenge discrimination.

“Congress put us, this Court, in its place when it said that,” Kagan said.

Race vs. Partisanship

Justice Alito suggested that what looks like racially polarized voting might actually be partisan polarized voting—Black voters tend to support Democrats, while white voters in Louisiana tend to support Republicans.

Nelson said you can’t use party affiliation to explain away racial discrimination. In Louisiana, the evidence showed that white Democrats don’t vote for Black candidates and Black Republicans don’t get support from white voters, regardless of party. The totality of circumstances—including that no Black person has ever been elected statewide in Louisiana—shows race plays an outsized role.

Can States Use Race to Remedy Discrimination?

Justice Neil Gorsuch pressed Nelson on whether federal courts can “intentionally discriminate on the basis of race” when ordering remedial maps. Nelson rejected that language, explaining that remedying proven discrimination is different from discriminating.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson broke down the process: Section 2 provides a test to determine if unequal access exists. If courts find a violation, states draw the remedy, which may or may not involve race-conscious districting. Any use of race must survive “strict scrutiny,” the highest level of constitutional review.

What Happens to Minority Representation?

Justice Kagan asked what would happen if Section 2 stopped working. Nelson gave a blunt answer: virtually every Black elected official in Louisiana—from Congress members to state legislators to judges—was elected from a Voting Rights Act “opportunity district.” Without Section 2 enforcement, Louisiana and other Southern states would see dramatically reduced minority representation.

An analysis found that weakening Section 2 could cost Democrats up to 19 congressional seats, with severe impacts in Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Tennessee, which could lose all of their Black representatives.

Louisiana’s Position Shift

Justice Thomas asked why Louisiana switched sides. The state first defended its two-district map. After the Court ordered reargument on Section 2’s constitutionality, Louisiana changed positions.

Aguiñaga said Louisiana has long believed Section 2’s requirement for race-based redistricting is unconstitutional. When the Court’s reargument question directly raised that issue, the state’s “duty of candor” required giving their honest answer.

Justice Kagan challenged this by saying, “The race-based redistricting that you’re now objecting to is redistricting designed to remedy a specific, identified, proved violation of law; more, a specific, identified, proved racial discrimination by the State.”

What’s Next

The Supreme Court will likely decide by June 2026. The outcome could look like this:

Narrow ruling: The Court rules specifically on Louisiana’s map without addressing broader constitutional questions about Section 2.

Moderate impact: The Court adds new requirements to Section 2 claims—such as time limits on race-conscious remedies or stricter scrutiny of partisan motivations—without eliminating Section 2 protections.

Sweeping change: The Court rules that Section 2’s requirement to consider race in redistricting violates the Equal Protection Clause, ending the law’s most powerful remaining provision.

Court observers suggest Justices Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett lean toward finding that Section 2 remedies fail constitutional scrutiny because of their indefinite duration. The Court’s conservative majority appeared skeptical, though Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Gorsuch didn’t clearly show their positions.

Why This Matters for Louisiana

For Louisianians, the stakes are personal. The congressional district at the center of this case elected Representative Cleo Fields in 2024—the first time since the 1990s that Louisiana sent two Black representatives to Congress.

Without protections like Section 2, Louisiana legislators would have more freedom to draw maps that minimize Black voting power, potentially returning to a single majority-Black district despite the state’s substantial Black population.

The case reflects Louisiana’s racial history. As Nelson pointed out in arguments, Louisiana has never elected a Black person to statewide office. Racially polarized voting in the state exceeds 84 percent—higher than the levels the Supreme Court found problematic in the original 1986 Gingles decision.

Louisiana voters on both sides are fighting for competing visions of democracy: one that sees race-conscious remedies as necessary to overcome historical discrimination and create equal opportunity, and another that views any consideration of race in districting as unconstitutional discrimination.

Dr. Press Robinson, the lead plaintiff who successfully challenged Louisiana’s original map, said after arguments that “Our fight for fair maps has taken years and builds on the legacy of generations of Black voters who have demanded an equal voice in our democracy. We hope that the Supreme Court will recognize and cement the right of all Black voters to a fair electoral map.”

The Court’s decision will determine the shape of Louisiana’s congressional districts and the future of voting rights protections that have been fundamental to American democracy for six decades.