Louisiana v. Callais

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Federalism Banner-Blue.png
Supreme Court of the United States
Louisiana v. Callais
Term: 2024
Important Dates
Argued: March 24, 2025
Argued: October 15, 2025
Decided: April 29, 2026
Outcome
affirmed and remanded
Vote
6-3
Majority
Samuel Alito • Chief Justice John Roberts • Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch • Brett Kavanaugh • Amy Coney Barrett
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Neil Gorsuch
Dissenting
Elena Kagan • Sonia Sotomayor • Ketanji Brown Jackson

Louisiana v. Callais is a case that was decided by the Supreme Court of the United States on April 29, 2026, during the court's October 2025-2026 term. The case was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on March 24, 2025, during the court's October 2024-2025 term. On June 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court set the case for re-argument for the October 2025-2026 term.[1] The case was re-argued on October 15, 2025. The case was consolidated with Robinson v. Callais for oral arguments.[1][2][3]

The Court affirmed and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in a 6-3 ruling, holding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) did not require Louisiana to redraw its maps to create another majority-minority district. The Court, applying strict scrutiny, determined that the state did not have a compelling interest in considering race when redrawing these maps. As such, the Court ruled that the maps, created under SB8, unconstitutionally considered race in their drawing. Justice Samuel Alito delivered the majority opinion of the court. Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.[4] Click here for more information about the ruling.


HIGHLIGHTS
  • The issue: The case concerned allegations of racial gerrymandering in Louisiana's congressional voting district maps and Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Click here to learn more about the case's background.
  • The questions presented:
    1. "Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8?
    2. "Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny?
    3. "Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions?
    4. "Is this action non-justiciable?""[5]
  • The outcome: The Court affirmed and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in a 6-3 ruling, holding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) did not require Louisiana to redraw its maps to create another majority-minority district. The Court, applying strict scrutiny, determined that the state did not have a compelling interest in considering race when redrawing these maps. As such, the Court ruled that the maps, created under SB8, unconstitutionally considered race in their drawing.


    • The case came on a jurisdictional statement from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana. To review the lower court's opinion, click here.

    Why it matters: concerns the standards federal courts apply when reviewing a state legislature’s congressional redistricting decisions under the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act. The Court’s resolution will clarify how courts assess claims of racial predominance, the application of strict scrutiny, and the use of the Gingles framework, shaping the limits of judicial oversight of state redistricting plans.[6]

    Background

    Federalism
    Federalism Icon 200x200.png
    •Key terms
    •     Court cases
    •Major arguments
    • State responses to federal mandates
    •State oversight of federal grants
    • Federalism by the numbers
    • Index

    Personnel

    Louisiana v. Callais

    The following are the parties to this case:[7]

    • Appellant: Louisiana
      • Legal counsel: Jorge Benjamin Aguinaga (Louisiana Department of Justice)
    • Appellee: Phillip Callais, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Edward Dean Greim (Graves Garrett LLC), Phillip John Strach (Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough)

    Robinson v. Callais

    The following are the parties to this case:[3]

    • Appellant: Press Robinson, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Stuart Charles Naifeh (NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.)
    • Appellee: Phillip Callais, et al.
      • Legal counsel: Edward Dean Greim (Graves Garrett LLC)

    Case summary

    The following summary of the case was published by Oyez:[8]

    “ This case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, specifically focusing on District 6, alleging that the map is an impermissible racial gerrymander. The map was created in response to a previous lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin, where plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. To address these issues, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new map (Senate Bill 8) that included a second majority-Black district. However, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that this new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. A three-judge panel concluded that District 6 of the new map did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading the court to issue an injunction against using this map in future elections.[9] ”

    To learn more about this case, see the following:


    Timeline

    The following timeline details key events in this case:

    • April 29, 2026: The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana in a 6-3 ruling, holding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) did not require Louisiana to redraw its maps to create another majority-minority district. The Court, applying strict scrutiny, determined that the state did not have a compelling interest in considering race when redrawing these maps. As such, the Court ruled that the maps, created under SB8, unconstitutionally considered race in their drawing.
    • October 15, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • June 27, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court decided to set Louisiana v. Callais for re-argument during the October 2025-2026 term.[1]
    • March 24, 2025: The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument.
    • November 4, 2024: The U.S. Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in the cases and consolidated them for oral arguments.
    • July 30, 2024: Louisiana appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
    • April 30, 2024: The United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana granted plaintiffs' request for injunctive relief, holding that Louisiana was barred from using SB8's congressional district voting maps.

    Questions presented

    The petitioner presented the following questions to the court:[5]

    Questions presented:
    “
    1. "Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8?
    2. "Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny?
    3. "Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions?
    4. "Is this action non-justiciable?"[9]
    		 ”

    Oral argument

    Arguments were originally heard on March 24, 2024, during the Court's 2024-2025 term. The Court scheduled rehearings for this case to be heard during the 2025-2026 term. The Court heard the second round of arguments on October 15, 2025.

    Rehearing arguments (2025)

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[10]



    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[11]

    Original arguments (2024)

    Audio

    Audio of oral argument:[12]




    Transcript

    Transcript of oral argument:[13]

    Outcome

    In a 6-3 opinion, the court affirmed and remanded the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, holding the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) did not require Louisiana to redraw its maps to create another majority-minority district. The Court, applying strict scrutiny, determined that the state did not have a compelling interest in considering race when redrawing these maps. As such, the Court ruled that the maps, created under SB8, unconstitutionally considered race in their drawing.[4]

    According to SCOTUSblog:[14]

    “ The Supreme Court on Wednesday, in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, struck down a Louisiana congressional map that a group of voters who describe themselves as 'non-African American' had challenged as the product of unconstitutional racial gerrymandering. By a vote of 6-3, the justices left in place a ruling by a federal court that barred the state from using the map, which had created a second majority-Black district, in future elections. Although Wednesday’s ruling did not strike down a key provision of the federal Voting Rights Act, as Louisiana and the challengers had asked the court to do, Justice Elena Kagan suggested in her dissent (which was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson) that the majority opinion by Justice Samuel Alito had rendered the provision 'all but a dead letter.'[9] ”
    —Amy Howe, SCOUTSblog

    Opinion

    In the court's majority opinion, Justice Samuel Alito wrote:[4]

    “ [...]allowing race to play any part in government decisionmaking represents a departure from the constitutional rule that applies in almost every other context.


    These and other problems convinced us that the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting. We now answer that question: Compliance with §2, 'as properly construed', can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, §2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map. Compliance with §2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here. The State’s attempt to satisfy the Middle District’s ruling, although understandable, was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and we therefore affirm the decision below. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Samuel Alito

    Concurring opinion

    Justice Clarence Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justices Neil Gorsuch.

    In his concurring opinion, Justice Thomas wrote:[4]

    “ I join the Court’s opinion in full. This Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups 'an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.' Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 93 (1986) [...] By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to 'systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.' Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 905 (1994). [...]


    As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. [...] The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a 'voting qualification,' 'prerequisite to voting,' or 'standard, practice, or procedure,' in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. 52 U. S. C. §10301(a). How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories.[9]

    		”
    —Justice Clarence Thomas

    Dissenting opinion

    Justice Elena Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

    In her dissent, Justice Kagan wrote:[4]

    “

    [In its decision to admend the Voting Rights Act], Congress exercised its constitutional responsibility to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment. And when called on to interpret the new law, this Court—from Gingles all the way through Allen—respected and implemented what Congress had done.

    Today’s majority does not. Its supposed 'updating' of Gingles overthrows Congress’s decision to make Section 2 liability hinge on an electoral practice’s effects—on how it actually works. The new Callais requirements will effectively insulate any practice, including any districting scheme, said by a State to have any race-neutral justification. That justification can sound in traditional districting criteria, or else can sound in politics and partisanship. As to the latter, the State need do nothing more than announce a partisan gerrymander. Assuming the State has left behind no smoking-gun evidence of a race-based motive (an almost fanciful prospect), Section 2 will play no role. [...]

    The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter. In the States where that law continues to matter—the States still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting—minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. [...]

    I dissent because Congress elected otherwise. I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent. [9]

    		”
    —Justice Elena Kagan

    Text of the opinion

    Read the full opinion here.

    Reactions to argument

    The section below contains quotes from media outlets, public officials, and national groups related to the argument in this case.

    Attorney General Liz Murrill (R) wrote in a brief filed with the U.S. Supreme Court:

    “ Race-based redistricting under Section 2 is principally unconstitutional because it inherently rests on a racial stereotype: that all voters of a particular race must — by virtue of their membership in their racial class — think alike, share the same interests, and prefer the same political candidates.[15][9] ”


    Press Robinson, plaintiff in the case against the original map, wrote for the ACLU:

    “ Louisiana v. Callais is critical in determining the future of Louisiana for Black people. Since the previous redistricting cycle, Louisiana has failed to comply with the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and federal courts have already found that the old map passed in 2022 violated the law by diluting Black power. Under the new map, for the first time in state history, the congressional delegation reflects the population of the state, giving citizens the opportunity to elect a member of Congress to use their voice and stand up for what’s right. Louisiana isn’t the only state at stake. This case could set a precedent for how race and representation in redistricting are handled nationwide.[16][9] ”


    The U.S. Department of Justice wrote in an amicus brief:

    “ In short, this Court’s Section 2 jurisprudence should account for the fact that, today, a State’s failure to create a compact majority-minority district, even where demographically possible, is far more likely to reflect political motives than racial ones. Too often, Section 2 is deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a State’s constitutional pursuit of political ends. That misuse of Section 2 is unconstitutional.[17][9] ”


    The National Redistricting Foundation's John Bisognano referenced the 2023 case Allen v. Milligan, which required Alabama to add a second majority-Black congressional district, stating:

    “ If the Court decides to now undo that precedent, it would be a head-spinning reversal of itself.[15][9] ”

    Lower court rulings

    Three lower court rulings were made prior to the Supreme Court hearing this case. Those rulings were:

    Middle District ruling (June 2022)

    On June 6, 2022, the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana struck down the state's congressional map and enjoined the state from using the districts for the 2022 elections.[18] To read the full ruling, issued by Chief Judge Shelly Deckert Dick, click here. Dick wrote:

    “ For the reasons set forth herein, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs are substantially likely to prevail on the merits of their claims brought under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court finds that absent injunctive relief, the movants are substantially likely to suffer irreparable harm. The Court has considered the balance of equities and hardships associated with injunctive relief, as well as the public policies attendant to the issuance of injunctive relief, and concludes that injunctive relief is required under the law and the facts of this case. The Court hereby GRANTS the Motions for Preliminary Injunction8 and PRELIMINARILY ENJOINS Secretary Ardoin from conducting any congressional elections under the map enacted by the Louisiana Legislature in H.B. 1.


    The appropriate remedy in this context is a remedial congressional redistricting plan that includes an additional majority-Black congressional district.[9]

    		”

    Fifth Circuit ruling (November 2023)

    On November 10, 2023, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a 2022 injunction that blocked the implementation of Louisiana’s congressional district maps for violating the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters and issued a deadline for the state to enact new maps for the 2024 election cycle, saying, "The district court did not clearly err ... in its conclusions that the Plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their claim that there was a violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in the Legislature’s planned redistricting. Nevertheless, the district court’s 2022 preliminary injunction, issued with the urgency of establishing a map for the 2022 elections, is no longer necessary."[21]

    The table below lists the judges who heard the case and the president who appointed the judge.

    Fifth Circuit ruling (November 2023)
    JudgeAppointed by
    Jennifer ElrodGeorge W. Bush Republican Party
    Carolyn KingJimmy Carter Democratic Party
    Leslie SouthwickGeorge W. Bush Republican Party

    Western District ruling (April 2024)

    The three-judge U.S. District Court for Western Louisiana ruled 2-1 to strike down the state's redrawn congressional map on April 30, 2024.[20] The table below lists the judges who heard the case, their ruling, and the president who appointed the judge.

    Western District ruling (April 2024)
    JudgeRulingAppointed by
    Robert SummerhaysMajorityDonald Trump Republican Party
    David JosephMajorityDonald Trump Republican Party
    Carl StewartDissentBill Clinton Democratic Party


    Joseph and Summerhays wrote in the majority opinion:

    “ Having considered the testimony and evidence at trial, the arguments of counsel, and the applicable law, we conclude that District 6 of SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Accordingly, the State is enjoined from using SB8 in any future elections.[22][9] ”


    Stewart wrote, dissenting:

    “ Contrary to my panel colleagues, I am not persuaded that Plaintiffs have met their burden of establishing that S.B. 8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The totality of the record demonstrates that the Louisiana Legislature weighed various political concerns—including protecting of particular incumbents—alongside race, with no factor predominating over the other.[22][9] ”

    October term 2025-2026

    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2024-2025
    See also: Supreme Court cases, October term 2025-2026

    The Supreme Court began hearing cases for the term on October 6, 2025. The court's yearly term begins on the first Monday in October and lasts until the first Monday in October the following year. The court generally releases the majority of its decisions by mid-June.[23]

    Related cases

    See also

    External links


    Footnotes

    1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 U.S. Supreme Court, "Louisiana v. Callais," June 27, 2025
    2. ↑ Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 24-109. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 24-109. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 24-110 - Robinson v. Callais," accessed November 27, 2024
    4. ↑ 4.0 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 Supreme Court of the United States, "Louisiana v. Callais - opinion," April 29, 2026
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 U.S. Supreme Court, "24-109 LOUISIANA V. CALLAIS," accessed November 27, 2024
    6. ↑ SCOTUSblog, "Louisiana v. Callais"
    7. ↑ U.S. Supreme Court, "No. 24-109 - Louisiana v. Callais," accessed November 27, 2024
    8. ↑ Oyez, "Louisiana v. Callais," accessed November 27, 2024
    9. ↑ 9.00 9.01 9.02 9.03 9.04 9.05 9.06 9.07 9.08 9.09 9.10 9.11 9.12 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    10. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued October 15, 2025
    11. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued October 15, 2025
    12. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Audio," argued March 24, 2025
    13. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, "Oral Argument - Transcript," argued March 24, 2025
    14. ↑ SCOTUSblog, 'In major Voting Rights Act case, Supreme Court strikes down redistricting map challenged as racially discriminatory,' April 29, 2026
    15. ↑ 15.0 15.1 Louisiana Illuminator, "‘Burn it all down’: Louisiana at center of conservatives’ congressional redistricting battle ," October 14, 2025
    16. ↑ ACLU, "Louisiana’s Black Voting Power is on the Line in Redistricting Fight," October 15, 2025
    17. ↑ In the Supreme Court of the United States, "Supplemental Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Appellees," accessed October 17, 2025
    18. ↑ 18.0 18.1 U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana, "Robinson et al v. Ardoin," June 6, 2022
    19. ↑ The New York Times, "Louisiana Must Finalize New Voting Map by January, Federal Appeals Court Says," November 10, 2023
    20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 NPR, "Callais - 2024-04-30 Injunction and Reasons for Judgment," April 30, 2024
    21. ↑ Democracy Docket, "United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit - No. 22-30333," November 10, 2023
    22. ↑ 22.0 22.1 United States District Court Western District of Louisiana Monroe Division, "Injunction and Reasons for Judgement," April 30, 2024
    23. ↑ SupremeCourt.gov, "The Supreme Court at Work: The Term and Caseload," accessed January 24, 2022
    v • e
    Federalism
    Overviews
    Terms
    Court cases
    Legislation
    Federal grant survey
    Federalism by the numbers
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Louisiana_v._Callais&oldid=11224635"