June 27, 2025 Story by: Publisher
In a sharply worded dissent from the Supreme Court’s decision to delay the resolution of Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district, Justice Clarence Thomas warns that the Court is overstepping its role and undermining legislatures attempting to uphold federal voting rights law.
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.”
Framing the Issue
Thomas begins by emphasizing the state’s good faith effort to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act:
“Louisiana enacted S.B. 8 to respond to a federal court’s finding that the original congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The legislature therefore drew a new district, CD6, to provide a second Black opportunity district.”
He underscores that the legislature’s purpose was “to avoid liability under federal law” and fulfill its legal obligations.
On the “Race Predominance” Finding
Thomas strongly objects to the majority’s conclusion that race “predominated” over traditional redistricting criteria in CD6:
“The Court today reaffirms that compliance with the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest under strict scrutiny. But it then goes on to hold that the district court correctly found that race predominated over traditional districting principles and that the map was not narrowly tailored to comply with Section 2.”
He argues this reasoning ignores the “practical reality” that race-conscious districts can arise naturally from efforts to comply with the VRA.
On Narrow Tailoring
The dissent states that demanding narrow tailoring in the context of Section 2 compliance imposes an unfair burden:
“The Court’s standard requires a level of precision in the use of race that is impossible to achieve in legislative redistricting.”
Justice Thomas reasons that strict scrutiny should not be weaponized to thwart legislatures’ good-faith attempts to avoid racial vote dilution:
“Courts should defer to the legislature’s reasonable efforts to comply with federal law, even if those efforts result in districts that are imperfectly drawn or that do not meet some hypothetical standard of ‘narrow tailoring.’”
On Traditional Districting Criteria
He notes that the legislature did respect many traditional redistricting principles:
“SB 8 respected traditional criteria, including contiguity, respect for political subdivisions, and incumbency protection.”
Thomas laments the majority’s focus on compactness and shape as overly rigid and inconsistent with real-world map drawing.
Separation of Powers and Judicial Overreach
Thomas warns that judicial intrusion into legislative mapmaking threatens the constitutional balance:
“The Court’s intervention here is an extraordinary incursion into a politically charged process properly committed to the legislature.”
He insists courts should not “second-guess” legislative efforts to comply with the law, especially given:
“The inherently political nature of redistricting demands judicial restraint.”
Summary Conclusion
Justice Thomas concludes his dissent by emphasizing respect for legislative authority and statutory compliance:
“The Court errs by striking down a map drawn in direct response to a federal court’s finding of Voting Rights Act violations.”
He calls for greater judicial deference to legislative judgment in the face of complex, competing constitutional and statutory demands.
Source: Supreme Court.gov
