Louisiana v. Callais
The Court holds that because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create a second majority-minority congressional district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in drawing its new map, making that map an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_new_jifl.pdf
Case background
These consolidated cases concern whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. After the 2020 census, a federal court held that Louisiana’s congressional map likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act because it did not include a second majority-minority district. When the State drew a new map that did include such a district, that new map was in turn challenged as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Questions Presented
- Did the lower court err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature’s enactment of the new map?
- Did the lower court err in finding that the new map fails strict scrutiny?
- Did the lower court err in subjecting the new map to the Gingles preconditions?
- Is this action nonjusticiable?
On reargument, the parties were also directed to address whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments.
Holding
Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating the new map, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
The Court
Justice Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
What this episode contains
This episode is an AI-narrated reading of the majority opinion in Louisiana v. Callais, written by Justice Alito.
AI disclosure: The voice in this episode is AI-generated, using a machine learning model styled to loosely resemble the authoring justice. Tone, inflection, pacing, and emphasis are artifacts of the model and should not be attributed to Justice Alito. The text being read is the Court’s published majority opinion, lightly adapted to improve readability for the spoken format.