BREAKING: Supreme Court rules using race in redistricting is unconstitutional

Louisiana had originally drawn a map after the 2020 census that contained one black-majority district out of its six districts. A lower court ruled that the map violated the Voting Rights Act, and when the state redrew the map in 2024, it had two black-majority districts. The Supreme Court held in this case that the Voting Rights Act "did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district."

In an opinion delivered by Justice Samuel Alito, he wrote that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, "as properly construed," can be a compelling interest for states, however, Louisiana’s redrawn map creating black-majority districts was not required under the act.

"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," he wrote, later adding, "Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State's use of race-based redistricting here."

"In short, Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race."

He later wrote, "In sum, 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 SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights."

In a concurring opinion, Justice Clarence Thomas wrote, "This Court should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups' an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’" He added, "By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to 'systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.'"

"Today’s decision should largely put an end to this 'disastrous misadventure' in voting-rights jurisprudence."

"As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all," Thomas wrote. "The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a 'voting qualification,’ 'prerequisite to voting,' or 'standard, practice, or procedure,' in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories."

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Elena Kagan wrote, "Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power. Of course, the majority does not announce today’s holding that way. Its opinion is understated, even antiseptic. The majority claims only to be 'updat[ing]' our Section 2 law, as though through a few technical tweaks."

"But in fact, those 'updates' eviscerate the law, so that it will not remedy even the classic example of vote dilution given above. Without a basis in Section 2’s text or the Constitution, the majority formulates new proof requirements for plaintiffs alleging vote dilution. Those demands, meant to “disentangle race from politics,” leverage two features of modern political life: that racial identity and party preference are often linked and that politicians have free rein to adopt partisan gerrymanders."

In a statement, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said, "We win in Louisiana v. Callais! The Supreme Court has ended Louisiana’s long-running nightmare of federal courts coercing the state to draw a racially discriminatory map. That was always unconstitutional — and this is a seismic decision reaffirming equal protection under our nation’s laws."

She added, "It is gratifying that the Supreme Court has finally vindicated our original position and, in doing so, clarified that only under very narrow circumstances — where there is proof of intentional discrimination — may race be used as a remedy under Section 2."

It is currently unclear how the decision will affect the 2026 midterm elections in the state. Secretary of State Nancy Landry said, "My lawyers are currently analyzing the opinion. We are limited in what we can say at this time as this continues to be active litigation, with the case remanded for proceedings back to the Western District."

State Rep. Beau Beaullieu, who chairs the House and Governmental Affairs Committee and would play a key role in drawing any new congressional maps, said on Wednesday morning, "We will be reviewing the decision and will know more once we know the particulars of the SCOTUS ruling."

Derrick Johnson, the president of the NAACP, said, "Today’s decision is a devastating blow to what remains of the Voting Rights Act, and a license for corrupt politicians who want to rig the system by silencing entire communities. The Supreme Court betrayed Black voters, they betrayed America, and they betrayed our democracy. This ruling is a major setback for our nation and threatens to erode the hard-won victories we’ve fought, bled and died for."

SCOTUS Louisiana ruling by Hannah Nightingale

https://rumble.com/embed/v76x7i6/?pub=2n05b