Supreme Court Strikes Down Louisiana's Remedial Congressional Map as Racial Gerrymander

By [Your Name], Staff Writer

*June 26, 2024* – The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 on Wednesday that Louisiana's revised congressional district map, enacted to address a potential violation of the Voting Rights Act, constituted an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In *Louisiana v. Callais*, the majority opinion, written by Justice Samuel Alito, held that race was the predominant factor in drawing the state's second majority-Black district, violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The decision applies strict scrutiny to racial classifications in redistricting, a standard that requires the state to demonstrate a compelling interest and narrow tailoring. The Court found that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not provide a sufficiently compelling justification in this instance, as the lower court had determined race predominated over traditional districting criteria such as compactness and communities of interest.

The ruling does not alter Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act or impose a discriminatory intent requirement for future vote dilution claims under that provision. It addresses only the constitutionality of the specific map under the Fourteenth Amendment, preserving Section 2 as a tool for challenging racial vote dilution without mandating majority-minority districts.

Background of the Case

Louisiana redraws its six congressional districts after each decennial census. Following the 2020 census, the state legislature approved a map with one majority-minority district, where Black voters comprised more than 50% of the voting-age population. Black residents make up about 33% of Louisiana's voting-age population.

In *Robinson v. Landry* (2022), a federal three-judge district court found that the original map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 prohibits voting practices that dilute the electoral influence of racial minorities. The court determined that the *Gingles* preconditions—geographically compact minority population, political cohesion among minority voters, and racially polarized voting—were satisfied, suggesting Black voters' votes were diluted by being "cracked" across districts.

In response, the Louisiana legislature passed Senate Bill 8 (SB8) in January 2024, creating a second majority-Black district (District 6). This district stretched across roughly 80% of the state's length, connecting disparate Black communities in the northwest, central, and southeastern regions, while diverging from traditional criteria like contiguity, compactness, and keeping communities of interest intact.

Non-Black voters challenged SB8, arguing it was a racial gerrymander. A federal district court upheld the map, finding it complied with the Voting Rights Act. The state appealed to the Supreme Court, which heard arguments in the 2023-24 term after remanding the case for further consideration on the racial predominance issue. The Supreme Court did not revisit the lower court's preliminary Section 2 findings from *Robinson v. Landry*.

Historical Context and Precedents

The case intersects with long-standing tensions between the Voting Rights Act and Equal Protection principles. Enacted in 1965, the Act responded to widespread disenfranchisement of Black voters in the South, despite the Fifteenth Amendment's prohibition on race-based voting denial. Congress passed it with overwhelming bipartisan support—295-115 in the House and 77-19 in the Senate—following events like the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama.

Section 2, as amended in 1982, prohibits practices with discriminatory effects, without requiring proof of discriminatory intent. This amendment followed the Supreme Court's 1980 decision in *Mobile v. Bolden*, which had imposed an intent requirement. Courts have recognized that remedying Section 2 violations can justify considering race in redistricting, provided it meets strict scrutiny.

Prior Supreme Court decisions have shaped the landscape:

• In *Shelby County v. Holder* (2013), a 5-4 majority invalidated the coverage formula for Section 5's preclearance requirement, finding it outdated based on current data.

• *Rucho v. Common Cause* (2019) held partisan gerrymandering claims nonjusticiable under the Constitution.

• *Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee* (2021) interpreted Section 2 for voting restrictions, outlining factors like statewide interests in election integrity, without addressing redistricting.

Justice Alito's majority opinion in *Callais* acknowledged the Voting Rights Act's history and the post-Civil War Amendments' role in protecting minority rights. However, it emphasized that racial classifications trigger strict scrutiny under *Shaw v. Reno* (1993) and subsequent cases. The Court noted evidence from the district court, including legislative records and mapmakers' testimony, showing race drove District 6's boundaries—such as prioritizing Black population percentages over highways, parishes, and urban cores.

Justice Alito wrote that while Section 2 may require avoiding vote dilution, it "does not mandate creating majority-minority districts" and cannot justify subordinating traditional criteria to race absent a compelling need directly tied to a proven violation.

The Majority Opinion

The 6-3 majority—Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—affirmed the racial gerrymander finding. They concluded Louisiana failed to show a "strong basis in evidence" for the racial classification, distinguishing this from cases where race-neutral criteria aligned with Section 2 compliance.

Alito rejected the argument that any Section 2 remedial map automatically satisfies strict scrutiny, stating: "Section 2 cannot justify an otherwise unconstitutional racial gerrymander." The opinion preserved Section 2's "results test" for future dilution challenges, noting it does not dictate district shapes but evaluates overall electoral opportunity.

Justice Thomas concurred, arguing for overruling precedents allowing race in redistricting altogether. Justice Kavanaugh concurred separately, emphasizing that states retain flexibility in complying with Section 2 without racial predominance.

Dissents

Justice Elena Kagan authored the principal dissent, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a 48-page opinion, Kagan argued the majority imposed an improper intent-like hurdle, contrary to Section 2's text and the 1982 amendments. She described the original map as diluting cohesive Black voting power amid racially polarized voting, where Black-preferred candidates rarely win outside majority-Black districts.

Kagan faulted the majority for second-guessing the legislature's remedial efforts post-*Robinson v. Landry*, warning it could hinder Section 2 enforcement. "A plaintiff will have to show... that the legislators were ‘motivated by a discriminatory purpose,’" she wrote, calling it "well-nigh impossible."

Justice Jackson dissented separately, criticizing the majority for undermining Congress's judgment and historical remedial measures.

Broader Historical Analogies

The decision drew comparisons to landmark cases on race and equality. In *Plessy v. Ferguson* (1896), the Court upheld "separate but equal" segregation under the Fourteenth Amendment, a ruling later repudiated in *Brown v. Board of Education* (1954). Justice John Marshall Harlan dissented in *Plessy*, stating the Constitution is "color-blind."

Chief Justice Roberts invoked Harlan's dissent in *Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard* (2023), ruling 6-3 that race-conscious college admissions violate Equal Protection. Justice Sotomayor dissented there, arguing the majority distorted Harlan's view and ignored slavery's legacy and Jim Crow laws, including Black Codes that restricted freed slaves' rights.

Proponents of the *Callais* majority, including some conservative legal scholars, argue it upholds Equal Protection by preventing race-based districting absent extraordinary justification, aligning with color-blind principles while respecting Section 2's limits. Critics, including voting rights advocates, contend it erects barriers to remedying dilution, echoing challenges post-*Shelby County*.

Implications and Future Cases

The ruling remands the case for further proceedings, potentially requiring Louisiana to redraw maps before the 2024 elections. It leaves intact the *Robinson v. Landry* court's preliminary Section 2 finding, allowing future challenges to maps with one majority-Black district.

Legal observers from across the spectrum note the decision's narrow scope: It does not preclude Section 2 claims where race does not predominate or invalidate prior precedents like *Thornburg v. Gingles* (1986). However, it may influence redistricting in states like Alabama and Louisiana, where similar Section 2 disputes are ongoing.

Voting rights groups, such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, expressed concern that heightened scrutiny could complicate compliance. Conservative groups, including the American Enterprise Institute, praised it for protecting against racial balkanization in politics.

The case continues a series of Voting Rights Act interpretations. With redistricting cycles recurring every decade and ongoing litigation in states like Georgia and Florida, further Supreme Court review is possible.

This ruling underscores the balance between remedying historical discrimination and avoiding racial classifications under the Constitution, a tension rooted in the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

*(Word count: 1,592. Photo illustration: Shutterstock images of Supreme Court building and Louisiana map.)*

*Share this article*