The Supreme Court has ruled against a new Louisiana redistricting law that would have created a second majority-black district in the state. In a decision issued on Wednesday, the court found the new congressional map constituted racial gerrymandering.
The case initially arose out of a new map drawn in 2022 following the 2020 census, which had only one majority-Black voting district. The map was challenged on the basis of discrimination, alleging that one majority-Black district did not adequately represent the Black voters in Louisiana, who comprise roughly one-third of the population. A federal judge ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, and the state of Louisiana drew a new congressional map in 2024, which included a second majority-Black district.
In Louisiana v. Callais, a group of plaintiffs self-described as “non-African American,” challenged the second map as unconstitutional. Plaintiffs argued that the new Louisiana map violated the equal protection clause of the Constitution by deliberately seeking to create districts on the basis of race. In addition to challenging the Louisiana map, plaintiffs argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) should be overturned. A lower court agreed with the plaintiffs that the map had been drawn on the basis of race. The Trump administration did not weigh in on Section 2 of the VRA, but urged the Supreme Court to uphold the ruling.
The Supreme Court first heard the case in March, 2025. Proponents of the law argued that the districts had been drawn to protect Republican incumbents in Congress rather than to promote districts along strict racial lines. Plaintiffs argued it was “utterly implausible” that the redistricting calculations had been the result of partisanship rather than racial considerations. The justices issued an order setting the case for a second hearing of oral arguments in the fall to specifically address whether the law violated the 14th or 15th Amendments to the Constitution, which prohibit placing restrictions on voting rights based on race.
The Justices ruled in a 6-3 decision, with the majority opinion written by Justice Samuel Alito, along ideological lines. In the majority opinion, Justice Alito said the case posed the question of whether “compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the lower court’s decision that the VRA did not require the State of Louisiana to create a second majority-minority district. Therefore, compliance with the VRA did not justify creating the new district on the basis of race.
Although the Court did not side with plaintiffs in overturning Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the ruling significantly narrowed the provision’s interpretation, requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than discriminatory results, which could reduce the VRA’s effectiveness in challenging future gerrymandering efforts. Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent that the decision rendered the provision “all but a dead letter.”