May 29, 2026 Story by: Publisher
The Supreme Court on Wednesday, April 29, 2026 struck down Louisiana’s second majority Black congressional district and weakened Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
In a 6-3 decision written by Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its final ruling in Louisiana v Callais, a case with sweeping implications for how states must balance race and geography when drawing political boundaries.
A group of voters describing themselves as “non African American” had challenged the map that the state drew in 2024 after a federal court struck down the previous map on the ground that the previous map violated the Voting Rights Act.
The court rules that the 2024 map, which created a second majority-black district, was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander” and violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.
The ruling stopped short of declaring Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, but it effectively overhauled the Gingles test. This 1986 legal precedent has long served as the primary standard for enforcing the VRA in redistricting challenges.
The court’s conservative majority found that the district, represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, relied too heavily on race. Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a “snake” that stretches more than 200 miles (320 kilometers) to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.
In his majority opinion, Justice Alito writes: “Compliance with Section 2, as properly construed, can provide such a reason. Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map. Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here.”
Justice Clarence Thomas joined Alito’s opinion, but he also wrote a brief, separate concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. Thomas suggested that the Supreme Court “should never have interpreted Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’” In Wednesday’s decision, Thomas wrote, “should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence.” Thomas would have held, he added, that Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.”
In a somber tone, Kagan read a summary of her 48-page dissent from the bench, signaling her strong disagreement with the majority’s ruling.
“The Voting Rights Act,” she wrote, “is, or, now more accurately, was, ‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history.’ It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality.” Only Congress, Kagan argued, can “say it is no longer needed, not the Members of this Court.”
“I dissent because Congress elected otherwise,” Justice Kagan wrote. “I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote. I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity. I dissent.”
The ruling effectively guts Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, removing a primary defense against discriminatory voting systems. With federal protections for voting maps now essentially neutralized, the court has cleared the way for state legislatures to use partisan gerrymandering as a pretext for denying Black voters fair representation in their government.
Upcoming Supreme Court challenges
The Supreme Court has scheduled the three cases raising the question of whether the Voting Rights Act can be enforced by individual voters (as opposed to just the DOJ) for conference this Thursday, May 14.
The three cases are Turtle Mountain, where Native Americans voters are seeking to reverse the 8th Circuit ruling that the VRA does not provide a private right of action, the Mississippi NAACP case challenging legislative maps, and the Milligan case from Alabama.
Supreme Court fast-tracks Louisiana redistricting ruling ahead of 2026 elections
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday, May 4, allowed its recent ruling on Louisiana’s congressional map to take effect immediately, an unusual move that bypassed the Court’s typical waiting period for decisions to be finalized. By accelerating the timeline, the Court enabled Louisiana officials to quickly begin redrawing district lines ahead of the 2026 elections.
The expedited action sparked a sharp disagreement between Justices Samuel Alito and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
“To avoid the appearance of partiality here, we could, as per usual, opt to stay on the sidelines and take no position by applying our default procedures. But, today, the Court chooses the opposite. Not content to have decided the law, it now takes steps to influence its implementation,” she wrote. “The Court’s decision to buck our usual practice under Rule 45.3 and issue the judgment forthwith is tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.”
In searing language, Jackson said the court’s majority “unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray. And just like that, those principles give way to power.”
The ruling and its immediate implementation means the state doesn’t have to wait the usual 32 days before a Supreme Court ruling is certified and sent back to a lower court.
Louisiana Republicans advance map eliminating one majority-Black congressional district
Louisiana advanced a congressional redistricting proposal this week that would eliminate one of the state’s two majority-Black congressional districts. Under the proposed map, the current majority-Black 6th Congressional District, which stretches from Baton Rouge to Shreveport and helped elect Democratic U.S. Rep. Cleo Fields would be significantly redrawn, leaving Louisiana with just one majority-Black district centered around New Orleans.
The state’s Senate and Government Affairs Committee voted 4-3 along party lines at 4:30 a.m. on Wednesday, May 13 to advance a redistricting effort after almost 10 hours of deliberation. A floor vote on the legislation is expected in the Louisiana Senate on Thursday, after which it will head to the lower chamber for consideration.
Louisiana Senate Bill 121 could net Republicans in the Pelican State a 5-1 majority in the U.S. House by breaking up the state’s majority-Black House District 6, which is currently held by Rep. Cleo Fields (D).
Louisiana approves congressional map reducing Black-majority districts from two to one
Louisiana lawmakers have approved a new congressional map that reduces the number of majority-Black congressional districts from two to one following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the redistricting case Louisiana v. Callais.
The ruling struck down the state’s previous map, which had created a second majority-Black district after years of litigation over Black voting rights and representation.
The new map dismantles a majority-Black district that ran from Baton Rouge to Shreveport, and was created as a result of a 2022 lawsuit.
The current Baton-Rouge-based district is represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields, who won the seat in 2024 and represented a similar district from 1992 until it was dismantled following a federal court decision in 1996. Democratic Rep. Troy Carter represents the other majority-Black district, centered around New Orleans.
The rescheduled primaries are now set for Nov. 3.
The legislation was signed into law by Gov. Jeff Landry, on May 29, 2026.
Louisiana to delay primaries for map redesign following SCOTUS ruling
Following the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down Louisiana’s congressional map, Governor Jeff Landry on Wednesday, announced plans to suspend the state’s upcoming May primary elections.
The governor intends to call a special legislative session to redraw the state’s political boundaries in compliance with the Court’s ruling. The decision to postpone the primaries has created significant uncertainty for candidates and voters alike as the state races to establish new districts ahead of the 2026 midterms.
A group of individual voters and voting rights organizations, including the NAACP and the League of Women Voters of Louisiana, have filed an emergency motion to block Governor Jeff Landry’s suspension of the state’s ongoing congressional primary.
The lawsuit argues that the Governor exceeded his legal authority and improperly used emergency statutes to halt an election in which thousands of citizens had already cast absentee ballots.
Absentee voting for the May 16 primary is already underway in Louisiana, and early voting had been set to start for all races this weekend.
Rearguments to SCOTUS
The U.S. Supreme Court heard re-arguments in the case of Louisiana’s congressional maps on Wednesday, October 15. This follows the highest court in the land pausing on ruling on the case in the previous term, which ended in June 2025.
On Oct. 15, President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson argued before the U.S. Supreme Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a case about equal representation for Black voters in Louisiana and the role of race in redistricting.
“Does the state’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violate the constitution’s Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments’ guarantee of the right to vote and the authority of Congress to enforce that mandate?“
If the justices determine Louisiana violated the constitution with its latest congressional map, it could undermine the Voting Rights Act. The legislation was approved in 1965 to bolster the protections granted in the 14th and 15th Amendments. It has been amended five times since then to strengthen its provisions, though voting rights advocates note federal court rulings over the past decade have chipped away at the law.
At question in the Callais case is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits voting laws or procedures that purposefully discriminate on the basis of race, color or membership in a language minority group.
In late June, Justice Clarence Thomas warned that the Court is overstepping its role and undermining legislatures attempting to uphold federal voting rights law. In a sharply worded dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to delay the resolution of Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district.
He argues that judicial skepticism toward race-conscious redistricting—especially when crafted to comply with the Voting Rights Act—risks eroding protections for minority representation and entangling courts in overtly political disputes.
“These cases are restored to the calendar for reargument,” the Court notes, leaving open the possibility of a precedent-shifting ruling next term that could redefine the boundaries of lawful redistricting nationwide. “In due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.”
The U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision to delay final judgment on Louisiana’s congressional map ordering new arguments in the fall. The decision effectively paused a high-stakes legal battle over voting rights, racial representation, and political power in one of the Deep South’s most heavily gerrymandered states.
At the heart of the case lies the question of whether Louisiana must preserve a second majority-Black congressional district—a pivotal issue that reshapes the state’s political landscape and may alter the balance of power in the U.S. House during the 2026 midterms.
Why This Case Raises Historic Stakes
The decision places front and center the tension between:
- Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) — which requires fair representation for minority voters when geography and demographics allow.
- The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and the 15th Amendment’s ban on racial discrimination in voting rights.
Supporters argue the new district remedies a violation of the VRA. Detractors claim any map drawn primarily on racial lines even for that reason undermines constitutional colorblindness.
Case Background
The U.S. Supreme Court announced a decision to delay final judgment on Louisiana’s congressional map ordering new arguments in the fall. The decision effectively pauses a high-stakes legal battle over voting rights, racial representation, and political power in one of the Deep South’s most heavily gerrymandered states.
At the heart of the case lies the question of whether Louisiana must preserve a second majority-Black congressional district—a pivotal issue that reshapes the state’s political landscape and may alter the balance of power in the U.S. House during the 2026 midterms.
The lawsuit, brought by civil rights groups and Black voters, challenges the Republican-controlled Louisiana Legislature’s post-2020 census map, which maintains just one majority-Black district out of six, despite the fact that Black residents make up nearly one-third of the state’s population.
After the 2020 census, Louisiana needed to draw a new map for its six congressional districts. Although roughly a third of the state’s population is Black, the map that the legislature enacted in 2022 contained only one majority-Black district.
A group of Black voters challenged that map, arguing that it diluted the votes of Black residents. A federal court agreed that it likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits election practices that result in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote. It instructed the state to draw a new map with a second majority-Black district and barred the state from using the existing map.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit upheld that ruling and instructed Louisiana to draw a new map by Jan. 15, 2024. Without a new map by then, the court of appeals said, the district court would hold a trial and, if necessary, adopt a map for the 2024 elections.
The legislature drafted a new map, known as S.B. 8, with a second majority-Black district that begins in the northwest corner of the state near Shreveport and stretches 250 miles southeast toward Baton Rouge.
The “non-African American” voters then challenged S.B. 8. A three-judge federal district court ruled that the creation of the second majority-Black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and it barred the state from using the map in the 2024 elections.
In 2022, a federal district court found the map to be racially discriminatory and ordered the state to draw a second majority-Black district.
A divided Supreme Court put the three-judge court’s decision on hold in May, allowing the state to use the map during the 2024 elections, and in November it set the appeal by the state and the Black voters for argument.
Louisiana officials, led by Republican Attorney General Liz Murrill, appealed, arguing that race was given too much weight in the court’s redistricting mandate, and that such race-conscious remedies risk violating the Equal Protection Clause. Their legal team contends that a second Black-majority district would require impermissible racial gerrymandering.
During oral arguments earlier this year, several justices pressed both sides on the constitutional and statutory boundaries of race in redistricting. The case arrives in the shadow of last year’s Allen v. Milligan decision, in which the Court upheld a similar order in Alabama. That precedent looms large, but with one-third of the docket still undecided and conservative justices signaling unease with federal court interventions, it remains unclear how closely the Court will hew to its 2023 ruling.
A Louisiana legislative committee on May 28, 2025 voted to reject two bills that would have added eight new majority-Black districts to the state House and Senate.
The proposals, introduced by Rep. Edmond Jordan (D‑Baton Rouge), chairman of the Legislative Black Caucus, would have redrawn the 39‑seat Senate map and 105‑seat House map to create more Black-majority districts.
Both measures failed on party-line votes: House Bill 487 (Senate districts) was defeated 9–6, and HB 488 (House districts) fell 9–5. As a result, Louisiana’s legislative boundaries remain unchanged this session, though lawmakers could revisit redistricting in a future legislative session.
What the Order Means
The Supreme Court’s new directive requires parties to address whether Legislature’s intentional draw of a second majority‑minority district can legally survive scrutiny under the 14th or 15th Amendments. This is unusual; the Court is not just reviewing Section 2 compliance—it’s questioning the constitutionality of remedial redistricting rooted in race.
Timeline & Next Steps
The Court has set a structured timeline for the next phase of the case:
Briefs from the State of Louisiana and Black voters are due on or before Wednesday,August 27, 2025.
The plaintiff, representing non-Black voters, must file their brief due on or before September 17, 2025.
All reply briefs are due on or before 2 p.m., Friday, October 3, 2025.
New oral arguments are expected to be scheduled during the Court’s 2025–26 term, with a final decision likely to be issued by June 2026.
Why this matter
- If the Court rules that a state’s remedial use of race violates constitutional norms, it could undermine decades of Voting Rights Act jurisprudence.
- The Louisiana case stands to reshape the guardrails for redistricting nationwide, including in states with growing minority populations.
- Advocacy organizations warn this ruling may be the most consequential VRA case since Shelby County v. Holder (2013).
Source: Louisiana Illuminator / Politico / Reuters / The Washington Post
