Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Congressional Map In Louisiana V. Callais Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday issued a 6-3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais that struck down a Louisiana congressional map challenged as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, blocking the state from using a map that had created a second majority-Black district in future elections.

“5 things to know about the Supreme Court's landmark decision on the Voting Rights Act The ruling does more than reshape one state's map”

ABC News

In the majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote, “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” and said the district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields relied too heavily on race.

ABC News

The decision left in place a lower-court ruling that barred Louisiana from using the 2024 map in future elections, while the Supreme Court did not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

SCOTUSblog described the case as involving a group of voters who describe themselves as “non-African American,” who challenged the 2024 map as “utterly implausible” that both race and politics were equally responsible.

PBS reported that the conservative majority found the Louisiana district relied too heavily on race, and that Chief Justice John Roberts described the 6th Congressional District as a “snake” stretching more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge.

The ruling’s practical effect, according to PBS, is that Louisiana may have to change its redistricting plan to comply, while it is unclear how much of Section 2 remains in force.

The Supreme Court’s action also came as the broader redistricting battle before November’s midterms intensified, with Politico describing the decision as significantly narrowing how Section 2 can be enforced and raising questions about whether Louisiana’s map will be in place for this year’s midterms.

The ruling in Louisiana v. Callais centered on how Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be used to challenge redistricting, and it effectively changed the evidentiary standard that plaintiffs must meet.

Democracy Docket reported that Justice Samuel Alito wrote that the court was not striking down Section 2, but rather “properly” interpreting it as “impos[ing] liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred.”

ABC News

Politico likewise said Alito wrote that evidence of racial disparity in the drawing of earlier maps was too weak to justify the use of race to draw the new map, adding that “Because 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.”

ABC News framed the ruling as striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district and holding that “race-conscious redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional,” describing the 6-3 decision as a “fundamental shift” in constitutional understanding.

Al Jazeera described the decision as a major reinterpretation of Section 2, saying it is unclear how much of that provision remains in force, and it reported that the ruling is expected to make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the 1965 law.

SCOTUSblog explained that the dispute arose from Louisiana’s efforts to adopt a new congressional map after the 2020 census, with the first map in 2022 having one majority-Black district out of six, and a federal judge agreeing the 2022 map likely violated Section 2.

It further described how Louisiana drew a new map in 2024 creating a second majority-Black district, which led to the lawsuit filed by the “non-African American” voters challenging the 2024 map.

The decision triggered sharply divided reactions, with dissenting justices warning that the ruling would “eviscerate” the Voting Rights Act while conservative voices celebrated the outcome as a victory for equal protection.

Democracy Docket reported that Justice Elena Kagan accused the majority of making changes that “eviscerate the law,” and it quoted Kagan’s view that the ruling was “the latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

In the same account, Democracy Docket quoted Kagan writing that the Voting Rights Act “was— ‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.’”

Politico described Kagan as reading portions of her opinion aloud from the bench, and it quoted her saying, “Under the Court’s new view … a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power.”

PBS reported that in her dissent, Kagan wrote that the court’s “gutting of Section 2 puts that achievement in peril,” and it quoted her sentiment that the decision would put the law’s achievement in peril.

On the political side, PBS quoted a statement from White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson saying, “This is a complete and total victory for American voters. The color of one's skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in.”

PBS also quoted Rep. Suzan DelBene saying Democrats remained poised to regain the House majority in November “despite this corrupt and targeted assault on the voting rights of Black and Brown Americans from the Supreme Court.”

While all the outlets described the same 6-3 Supreme Court ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, they emphasized different implications and framed the decision in different ways.

ABC News presented the ruling as striking down Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district and held that “race-conscious redistricting under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional,” while it also described the decision as a “fundamental shift” in constitutional understanding.

ABC15 Arizona

Politico focused on uncertainty for states and courts, describing the ruling as “significantly narrowed a key provision of the Voting Rights Act” and raising questions about how states can utilize race in mapmaking, including whether Louisiana’s map will be in place for this year’s midterms.

PBS emphasized the political consequences for House control, stating that the ruling opened the door for more redistricting across the country that could aid Republican efforts to control the House, and it highlighted that the effect may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year’s congressional races have passed.

Al Jazeera emphasized the expected impact on minority challenges to electoral maps, saying the decision is expected to make it harder for minorities to challenge electoral maps as racially discriminatory under the 1965 law, and it described the ruling as a major reinterpretation of Section 2.

SCOTUSblog emphasized the procedural posture and the litigation history, describing how the Supreme Court left in place a ruling that barred Louisiana from using the map in future elections and noting that Kagan suggested in her dissent that the provision “all but a dead letter.”

Local outlets also diverged in tone and focus, with Georgia Recorder quoting Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and Warnock, and the San Francisco Chronicle quoting Alito’s constitutional framing.

The ruling is expected to reshape redistricting efforts across multiple states, with deadlines and election calendars becoming a central constraint on how quickly lawmakers can respond.

“Politicians, legal experts react to Supreme Court ruling on key provision of Voting Rights Act WASHINGTON (WLS) -- A major U”

ABC7 Chicago

PBS reported that the effect of the ruling may be felt more strongly in 2028 because most filing deadlines for this year's congressional races have passed, while it also said Louisiana may have to change its redistricting plan to comply.

ABC7 Chicago

Politico described uncertainty about whether Louisiana’s map will be in place for this year’s midterms, and it noted that the decision raises questions about how states can utilize race in their mapmaking process.

Al Jazeera reported that Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry told Republican candidates for the House of Representatives that he planned to suspend next month’s primary elections to allow state lawmakers time to approve a new congressional map.

MyIndMakers described how timing could limit impact on upcoming midterms, noting that in Louisiana the primary election for federal offices is set for May 16 and early voting is scheduled to begin shortly.

In Georgia, Georgia Recorder reported that some prominent Republicans started calling for Georgia lawmakers to redraw the state’s political maps hours after the Supreme Court issued the ruling, and it quoted Raphael Warnock and Lt. Gov. Burt Jones.

In Illinois and Maryland, local reporting described paused or new state-level efforts, including Illinois Senate President Don Harmon saying legal experts must review the decision and Maryland Senate President Bill Ferguson calling it “a tragic step backward” while Sen. Charles Sydnor III called it “a gut punch.”