Divided Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana Redistricting Map

In Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional map. By a vote of 6-3, the majority held that because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, there was no compelling interest to justify the state’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Facts of the Case

In 2022, after the State redrew its congressional districts, a federal judge held in Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (MD La.), that the 2022 map likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) because it did not include an additional majority-black district. However, when the State drew a new map, SB8, that contained such a district, the new map was challenged as a racial gerrymander.

In Callais v. Landry, 732 F. Supp. 3d 574 (WD La.), a three-judge court held that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The State of Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court. In granting certiorari, the Supreme Court agreed to address tension between the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause.

Majority Decision

The Supreme Court affirmed. “In sum, 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 in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote on behalf of the majority. He was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett.

In his opinion, Justice Alito explained that “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” He went on to address “whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act should be added to our very short list of compelling interests that can justify racial discrimination.”

According to the majority, compliance with §2, as properly construed, can provide such an interest.Under the Court’s new framework, §2 thus does not intrude on States’ prerogative to draw districts based on nonracial factors, including to achieve partisan advantage.Thus, §2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.

As Justice Alito explain, the Court’s interpretation “is the best reading of the statutory text and ensures that section of the Voting Rights Act does not exceed Congress’s authority under Section 2 of the Fifteenth Amendment.”

“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 … was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids,” Justice Alito wrote.

The majority further found that its interpretation does not require abandonment of the framework for evaluating §2 claims that the Court established in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986). Rather, the Court need only update the framework, so it aligns with the statutory text and reflects important developments since the Court decided Gingles 40 years ago.  Gingles included: vast social change throughout the country and particularly in the South; a correlation between race and party preference; partisan-gerrymandering claims being “repackaged” as racial-gerrymandering claims; and the use of technology to create alternative maps to produce racial balance, where possible.

The majority ultimately concluded that Louisiana’s enactment of SB8 triggered strict scrutiny because the State’s underlying goal was racial. “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 in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander,” Justice Alito explained.

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. According to Justice Thomas, “[T]his Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’”

Dissent

Justice Elena Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. “The majority claims only to be ‘updat[ing]’ our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks. But in fact, those ‘updates’ eviscerate the law,” Justice Kagan argued

“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” she added. “Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way.”

On May 4, the Supreme Court allowed its ruling to take effect early, declining to provide extra time for a request for a rehearing.