Louisiana v. Callais, Docket No. 24-109

Listen to the episode On Spotify on Apple Podcasts or on YouTube

The Supreme Court has fundamentally weakened one of the most important tools for protecting minority voting rights. In a 6-3 decision, the Court made it nearly impossible for Black voters to challenge congressional maps that split their communities into pieces, even when those maps were drawn specifically to dilute their voting power. The ruling will reshape how states can draw election districts and could affect which party controls Congress for years to come.

What This Case Was About

Louisiana redrew its congressional map after a federal court said the old one violated the Voting Rights Act by failing to create a second district where Black voters made up the majority. The state created that new majority-Black district, stretching roughly 250 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. But then a different group of voters sued, claiming the state had made race the dominant factor in drawing the lines. A lower court agreed, and Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court, which sided with the challengers.

The Court's New Rule

Justice Alito's majority opinion changed how courts evaluate voting maps in three major ways. First, the Court said that states can only use race in redistricting if the Voting Rights Act actually requires it. But then the Court narrowed what the Voting Rights Act requires. The law says minority voters cannot have less opportunity than other voters to elect their preferred candidates. The majority now interprets this to mean minority voters are only entitled to whatever voting power results from the state's other goals, like helping one political party win or protecting politicians already in office.

Second, the Court made it much harder to prove that a map dilutes minority voting power. Voters challenging a map must now show that their alternative maps satisfy all of the state's goals, including partisan ones. They must also prove that racial divisions in voting cannot simply be explained by party differences. And they must focus on present-day intentional discrimination rather than historical patterns.

Third, the Court found that Louisiana's original map did not actually violate the Voting Rights Act, which meant the state had no good reason to draw the new majority-Black district in the first place.

What the Dissenters Said

Justice Kagan's dissent, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, warned that the majority has gutted the Voting Rights Act. She painted a stark picture: imagine a neighborhood that is 90 percent Black, sliced like a pie into six pieces, with each piece attached to a mostly white district so Black voters are always outvoted. That is exactly what the Voting Rights Act was designed to prevent, she argued.

The dissenters made a crucial point: Congress specifically amended the Voting Rights Act in 1982 to stop requiring proof of intentional discrimination, because that was nearly impossible to prove. The majority's new rules bring that nearly impossible burden back. The dissenters also noted that the Court had reaffirmed the old framework just three years ago in a similar case involving Alabama. Most importantly, they warned that because Black voters and Democratic voters overlap so heavily in most Southern states, any state can now simply claim it was drawing maps for partisan advantage and shield itself from challenge.

Diluting the Voting Rights Act and Creating Substantial Barriers of Proof

The practical effect is striking. States can now announce they are drawing maps to help one political party, and because that party's voters and minority voters often overlap, minority voters will struggle to propose alternative maps that both achieve the state's partisan goals and give their communities a fair shot at electing their preferred candidates. The door to using race in redistricting is now open, but there is almost nothing left behind it.

This decision does not ban states from considering race when drawing maps. It simply makes it far harder for voters to prove that a map unfairly dilutes their power. For everyday citizens, this means the maps that determine which party controls Congress and state legislatures just became much harder to challenge, even when they appear designed to weaken minority voting strength.