Supreme Court Adds Gerrymandering Case to Docket

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to consider a closely watched Louisiana redistricting dispute involving a map that created a second majority-Black congressional district in the state. The two cases, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, provide an opportunity for the justices to address the tension between the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Facts of the Case

The cases spring from more than two years of litigation, in which two separate groups of voters have challenged Louisiana’s congressional maps. The first challenge alleged that the state’s map violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act, while the current suits contend that the map runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution.

In the first round of redistricting litigation, Robinson, et al v. Ardoin, the district court concluded that theplaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that Louisiana’s 2022 redistricting plan violated the Voting Rights Act. The plaintiffs had alleged that the plan violated Section 2, which prohibits election practices that result in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race, by diluting the votes of the state’s Black residents, which make up a third of the state’s population.

In response to the court’s decision, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new redistricting map via by Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which established a second majority-Black congressional district to resolve theRobinsonlitigation. A separate group of plaintiffs then filed the latest case challenging the 2024 congressional map on the grounds that the second majority Black district created by the Legislature violates the Equal Protection Clause because it sorted voters predominantly by race.

Lower Court’s Decision

A majority of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Louisiana enjoined SB 8 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. While the court acknowledge that race neutral considerations factored into the Legislature’s decisions, such as the protection of incumbent representatives, it ultimately determined that race was the predominate factor driving decisions made by the State in drawing the contours of District 6. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act never requires race to predominate in drawing Congressional districts at the sacrifice of traditional districting principles.

In its appeal, the State of Louisiana contends that it is “stuck in an endless game of ping-pong” that must be resolved. If not, “the state will be sued again no matter what it does,” it argues.

Issues Before the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted certiorari on November 4, 2024. The justices have agreed to consider the following questions: (1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of S.B. 8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting S.B. 8 to the preconditions specified inThornburg v. Gingles; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled, but will likely take place early next year. A decision is expected by the end of the term in June/July. Please check back for updates.