SCOTUS Just Heard a Major Redistricting Case from Louisiana—Here’s What You Need to Know
While redistricting cases rarely capture headlines, this one should.
On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could shape the future of redistricting—not just in Louisiana, but across the country.
At issue is whether Louisiana’s new congressional map, passed in 2024 to comply with a federal court ruling under the Voting Rights Act (VRA), goes too far in using race to draw political lines.
While redistricting cases rarely capture headlines, this one should. It sits at the intersection of race, political power, and constitutional limits—raising important questions about what states are allowed to do when responding to court-ordered changes, and whether compliance with the VRA can justify race-conscious mapmaking.
Here’s a breakdown of what the Justices heard, what the lawyers argued, and what it all means for Louisiana and beyond.
The Background: How We Got Here
This case is a sequel to Robinson v. Ardoin, where a federal district court (later affirmed by the Fifth Circuit) ruled that Louisiana’s old congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA by offering only one majority-Black district. The court demanded a second such district.
In response, the Louisiana Legislature passed a new map (SB8) in early 2024. It included a second majority-Black district—District 6—but did so by drawing a district that snakes north from Baton Rouge to Shreveport. Critics quickly pointed out the map’s lack of compactness and traditional redistricting principles.
Defenders of the map say the state was caught between a rock and a hard place: either draw a second majority-Black district themselves or allow a federal judge to impose one that might have unseated prominent Republican incumbents, including Speaker Mike Johnson. So the Legislature chose the former—trying to comply with the court while preserving its political balance.
Now, that map is being challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause.
Louisiana’s Case: “We Followed the Law—and Protected Our Interests”
Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga argued that Louisiana had solid legal footing for its actions.
He offered three main points:
The plaintiffs don’t have standing—they haven’t shown concrete harm.
Race did not predominate in drawing the map. Instead, the Legislature made political decisions to protect key incumbents.
Even if race played a role, the state had a “good reason”: it was trying to comply with a federal court ruling that said its old map was likely unlawful.
Aguiñaga repeatedly emphasized that the Legislature wasn’t acting on its own—it was responding to prior court decisions. And importantly, the map they drew still preserved political incumbency and didn’t drastically shift the state's congressional delegation.
What the Justices Said
The Justices appeared divided—though perhaps not along the usual ideological lines.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor pushed Louisiana hard, suggesting the map was clearly designed with race in mind and that traditional redistricting principles had been tossed aside.
Justice Elena Kagan was more sympathetic to the state, suggesting that after losing in court multiple times, Louisiana had the right to draw a map that complied with the ruling while protecting incumbents.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson focused on whether race truly “predominated” in the process. She appeared open to the idea that the state was motivated primarily by politics, not race, which could shield the map from strict scrutiny.
On the other side:
Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito expressed skepticism that a vacated preliminary injunction (like the one in Robinson) provided sufficient justification for race-based districting. Gorsuch, in particular, questioned whether Louisiana had gone too far in drawing such an oddly shaped district.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett and Justice Brett Kavanaugh seemed focused on the nuances—what counts as “good reason” to consider race, and how far a state can go in relying on political goals when drawing lines.
The Broader Question: Who Gets the Final Say?
The heart of this case isn’t just about one congressional district. It’s about a broader constitutional issue: When a federal court tells a state its map likely violates the Voting Rights Act, and the state responds by drawing a new map, how much leeway should it have?
Should the state’s effort to comply with the court be presumed lawful, or does any use of race—even in compliance—automatically invite strict scrutiny?
The Justices now must balance two competing principles:
The need for states to follow federal court orders on voting rights,
And the Constitution’s prohibition on race-based decision-making, even in the name of compliance.
Why It Matters
What the Court decides in this case will affect redistricting efforts well beyond Louisiana. Georgia, Alabama, and Texas are facing similar legal battles. A ruling that narrows the scope of state discretion could set new, stricter limits on how legislatures respond to VRA litigation.
On the other hand, a ruling in Louisiana’s favor could reaffirm that political considerations—like protecting incumbents or maintaining partisan balance—remain constitutionally valid, even when race is part of the mix.
Final Thought
The reality is, redistricting is never clean. It’s messy, political, and often controversial. But states shouldn’t be left in limbo when federal courts demand changes and then punish them for trying to comply.
Louisiana v. Callais asks the Court to answer a basic, but critical, question: Can a state be punished for listening to the courts?
We’ll find out by June.
If you appreciate legal analysis without the partisan noise—and want more coverage from the intersection of politics, policy, and the Constitution—consider subscribing. I bring a Louisiana-based perspective with a focus on clarity, common sense, and what actually matters to voters.