August 14, 2025 Story by: Publisher
The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a ruling on Thursday that blocked Louisiana’s state legislative maps, finding the state ‘packed’ and ‘cracked’ Black communities in violation of Section 2.
The federal appeals court panel declined Louisiana’s request to invalidate a provision of the Voting Rights Act (VRA), preserving a key mechanism for challenging racial discrimination in voting.
“Today’s victory is a testament to the strength and resilience of Black communities across Louisiana who have fought for years to be fairly recognized, represented, and heard,” Sara Rohani, assistant counsel at the Legal Defense Fund said. “Fair representation is not optional in Louisiana. Today’s decision reaffirms that the State must pass fair and non-discriminatory maps to comply with the Voting Rights Act. We look forward to rectifying another example of Louisiana’s long history of racial voter suppression.”
The ruling affirms the outcome of a seven-day trial in late 2023, where expert witnesses, data analysis, and firsthand accounts from Black voters across Louisiana exposed the discriminatory effect of the current maps and their impact in places like Shreveport, Baton Rouge, and Natchitoches.
The state urged the 5th Circuit to use the case to rule Section 2 unconstitutional by finding that conditions in the state no longer justify race-conscious remedies.
The 5th Circuit panel also rejected Louisiana’s separate argument that would broadly weaken the VRA: Private parties have no right to sue under Section 2.
The panel comprised James Dennis, nominated to the bench by former President Clinton; Catharina Haynes, nominated by former President George W. Bush; and Irma Carrillo Ramirez, nominated by former President Biden upheld a 2024 ruling from U.S. District Judge Shelly Dick of the Middle District of Louisiana.
While considered a win for Black voters, the cases before a three-judge panel have had their mandate stayed at the request of one or more of the circuit’s judges.
Under the Fifth Circuit’s internal operating procedures, “any active Fifth Circuit judge may request that the court withhold issuance of its mandate” to allow differences with the panel to be resolved or to poll the entire circuit on whether to take the case en banc.
Background
Nairne v. Landry is a significant ongoing federal legal challenge brought in March 2022 under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
In March 2022, the ACLU, ACLU of Louisiana, NAACP LDF, and Louisiana attorney John Adcock brought a Section 2 challenge to Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps on behalf of Black voters across the state.
Both plans pack Black voters into a small number of majority-Black districts and crack other Black communities across other districts to prevent them from forming an effective voting bloc. As a result, Black voters in Louisiana cannot participate equally in the political process or elect candidates of their choice outside of a few majority-Black districts.
A federal court heard the full trial on the merits from November 2023 to December 2023. In the seven-day trial, the court heard testimony from Black Louisiana voters who brought the case as well as statistical evidence of vote dilution and evidence of historical and ongoing voting discrimination in the state from the plaintiffs’ experts.
On February 8, 2024, the district court ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor, finding Louisiana’s House and Senate legislative maps violated Section 2 of the VRA across the state, including around Shreveport, Baton Rouge, Natchitoches, and Lake Charles.
Plaintiffs satisfied the Gingles preconditions, and every relevant Senate Factor to overwhelmingly satisfy the totality of the circumstances test demonstrating a clear Section 2 violation.
Defendants filed a notice of appeal of the decision in late February 2024. Defendants also moved the full Fifth Circuit to rehear the case en banc before a panel considered it, mainly, to reconsider its precedent holding that a private right of action exists to enforce Section 2 of the VRA. In June 2024, the Fifth Circuit denied Defendants’ request.
The appeal in Nairne raises several questions, including whether Section 2 empowers private litigants—such as the minority voters who brought these cases—to sue to challenge racially discriminatory voting practices.
Since Section 2 was first enacted in 1965, Congress, the courts, the United States Department of Justice, and private litigants have all agreed that they can. But in recent years that settled understanding has come under attack.
Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee (2021) has helped stoke these attacks by suggesting that only the Department of Justice can bring Section 2 claims.
The U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana ruled that the plaintiffs could bring such claims, noting that the Fifth Circuit, just one year prior, had concluded that Section 2 contains a private right of action.
The District Court further determined that Louisiana’s state legislative maps violated Section 2. Defendants and intervenors, including the State of Louisiana, appealed the ruling.
The Louisiana Attorney General initially asked that the appeal be heard en banc to reconsider the Circuit’s precedent on the Section 2 private right of action. The Fifth Circuit denied that request.
Impending Supreme Court Decision
In the case of Callais v. Louisiana the court addressed whether Section 2 of the VRA, which prohibits voting laws that discriminate based on race, remains enforceable. Louisiana officials had argued that the provision was unconstitutional, but the panel upheld its application, reinforcing the VRA’s role in safeguarding minority voting rights.
In 2022, the Louisiana State Senate and House of Representatives enacted new legislative maps—S.B. 1 and H.B. 14, respectively.
The plaintiffs in the case include Dr. Dorothy Nairne, Rev. Clee Earnest Lowe, Dr. Alice Washington, Pastor Steven Harris, the Black Voters Matter Capacity Building Institute, and the Louisiana State Conference of the NAACP, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, ACLU of Louisiana, Legal Defense Fund, Harvard Law School Election Law Clinic, Cozen O’Connor, and Louisiana attorneys Ron Wilson and John Adcock brought this lawsuit against various state defendants, alleging that S.B. 1 and H.B. 14 dilute the voting strength of Black Louisianian’s in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The dispute centers on Louisiana’s 2022 redistricting plan, which increased the number of Black-majority congressional districts from one to two. Opponents contend that the revised map constitutes an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, while proponents assert it remedies previous Voting Rights Act violations.
The U.S. Supreme Court will hear re-arguments in the case of Louisiana’s congressional maps on Wednesday, October 15. This comes after the highest court in the land paused on ruling on the case in the previous term, which ended in June.
“Does the State’s intentional creation of a second majority‑minority congressional district violate the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution?”
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.
Source: ACLU / Brennan Center of Justice / The Hill / NAACP LDF
