March 29, 2025 Story by: Publisher
Four days after Trump’s swearing-in this January, the Justice Department told the Supreme Court that the federal government’s opinion for the Louisiana congressional redistricting case had changed. The U.S. government, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris wrote in a court filing, that the U.S. government no longer takes the position that to get in line with Section 2 of the Voting Right Act, the state of Louisiana needed to draw another congressional district where Black voters have an opportunity to elect their preferred candidate.
This month, attorneys for the U.S. government dropped two lawsuits regarding the rights of voters of color in Southern states. Weeks earlier, the Justice Department withdrew a request to take part in Monday’s Supreme Court oral arguments for a Louisiana congressional redistricting case that some legal experts fear could further weaken the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965.
“These consolidated cases concern a constitutional racial-gerrymandering challenge to Louisiana’s Sixth Congressional District (CD6), which the Louisiana legislature redrew following a district court ruling that Louisiana’s previous map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U.S.C. 10301. In the decision under review, the three-judge district court found that race predominated in the drawing of the new CD6’s lines and further determined that the State’s use of race did not satisfy strict scrutiny.”
“On December 23, 2024, the United States filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of neither party. The brief took no position on the district court’s finding of racial predominance at the first step of the racial-gerrymandering inquiry. The brief primarily argued that the district court applied the wrong legal framework in holding that CD6 fails strict scrutiny. Specifically, the brief argued that the earlier VRA litigation provided the State with a strong basis in evidence to believe that it needed to draw another majority-minority district to achieve Section 2 compliance, and that the court below erred in requiring the State to prove that CD6 as drawn would have satisfied the preconditions for VRA liability if it had been offered as an illustrative district by a Section 2 plaintiff.”
“On January 16, 2025, the United States filed a motion for leave to participate in the oral argument as amicus curiae and for enlargement of the argument time. The Court has not yet acted upon that motion. Following the change in Administration, the Department of Justice has reconsidered the government’s position in these cases. The purpose of this letter is to notify the Court that the previously filed brief no longer represents the position of the United States. In addition, the United States is withdrawing its pending motion to participate in the oral argument.”
The legal reasoning upon which the Justice Department is basing its recent about-face in the cases against Louisiana and Georgia’s Houston County is not clear. The department’s court filings have not provided details.
Source: NPR
