The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was a landmark victory of the Civil Rights Movement. Signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on August 6th, 1965, this bill was to counteract racist barriers that prevented black citizens from exercising their right to vote, including the removal of literacy tests and poll taxes. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 gave power to the 15th Amendment, which famously granted African American men the right to vote after the Civil War. This historic symbol of progress celebrates its 60th anniversary this year, yet despite the cause for celebration, Louisiana (the state with the fourth-highest black population by percentage) may be on the verge of unraveling this pivotal beacon of racial equality in America.
Louisiana, a state where nearly a third of its population is African American, is the latest state to be swept up in the redistricting challenges occurring around the country, from California to Texas. Yet, Louisiana’s redistricting battles are starkly different from other states, as their efforts are driven by race, with the potential to undermine a central pillar of voting rights equality.
Our story begins in 2022, when the Louisiana Legislature adopted a congressional map with only one black-majority district out of the six districts across the state. Black voters in the state, realizing that this map would undermine their voting power, quickly appealed the 2022 map. In March 2022, Nairne v. Landry challenged the map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which states, “ No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in the denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” As new parties joined the plaintiff’s side, voicing their own concern about the gerrymandered districts, the case was renamed to Robinson v. Landry.
During this time, the Supreme Court was in the midst of another case, Allen v. Milligan, determining whether Alabama’s congressional districts violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Louisiana asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower court’s ruling in Robinson v. Landry to redraw the map, which it temporarily granted. However, rather than enact a final ruling, the Court decided to wait for its decision in Allen v. Milligan, holding Robinson v. Landry in abeyance. In November 2023, following the Supreme Court’s ruling in Allen v. Milligan (which ruled that Alabama’s maps violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act), the Fifth Circuit used this decision to determine that Louisiana’s maps were probably discriminatory, thereby determining that the legislature should redraw the maps. After the Fifth Circuit’s ruling, the Louisiana legislature included a second black-majority district in an updated 2024 map, seemingly putting this case to rest. However, this reprieve was short-lived in the eyes of the court, as a new legal challenge quickly emerged.
A group of “non-African-American” Louisianans led by defendant Phillip Callais, challenged the updated 2024 map, stating that it was in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. After an expedited trial, on April 30th, 2024, a divided panel of three federal judges overturned Louisiana’s 2024 map, lending credence to the theory that the legislators improperly favored race during the construction of the new districts. In theory, this would have reverted Louisiana’s map to the original one black-majority district for the 2024 Presidential Election. In May 2024, the plaintiffs asked the Supreme Court to temporarily hold off on the map overturn due to the general election. The U.S. Supreme Court granted an emergency stay in Robinson v. Callais, pausing enforcement of the district court’s decision to strike down Louisiana’s 2024 map as racial gerrymandering using the Purcell Principle, a judicial presumption against major change close to an election year.
The Court heard the first oral arguments for Louisiana v. Callais in March 2025. On June 27th, 2025, the Supreme Court scheduled a rehearing of the case for the 2025-2026 term with a major twist: the court asked both sides for a brief explaining whether the creation of a second black-majority district would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment. At this point in the case, the argument wasn’t the concept behind two black-majority districts in Louisiana, but how those specific districts were drawn. The Louisiana government argued that its 2024 map was necessary as a result of previous court rulings by the Fifth Circuit. The Callais position is not that Louisiana was wrong to create two black-majority districts, but rather that the 2024 map (particularly District 6) was poorly drawn because it relied on race as the sole criterion in redistricting, thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause.
Unexpectedly, the Louisiana government has completely reversed its stance, seeking the Supreme Court to rule that ANY use of race in redistricting is unconstitutional. The brief submitted by the state of Louisiana argues against racial redistricting in the same way affirmative action was overturned by the court, stating, “Race-based redistricting is categorically unconstitutional for all the reasons race-based admissions programs are likewise unconstitutional.” This is the ultimate legal irony: a state, forced to consider race to remedy a voting rights violation, now uses that same mandate to argue that considering race is itself the violation. By targeting the medicine, Louisiana seeks to invalidate the diagnosis. The danger is that in the pursuit of a colorblind ideal, the Court may sacrifice a critical lens that has been used for decades to ensure minority voters are not rendered invisible in the democratic process.
In an unprecedented turn, this complex dispute over the legitimacy of a congressional district has evolved into a case with the potential to threaten the fundamental principle of fair and equitable voting. While the 2024 Louisiana map is poorly drawn, the subsequent removal of race as a consideration from drawing district maps represents massive judicial overreach with significant consequences for voting rights advocates across the country. The Court will have to weigh the arguments and determine whether equitable justice can be achieved by ignoring real-world factors that impact the voting rights of millions in this country. If Louisiana’s proposal is accepted, maps will not have to be redrawn for many to wonder if voting rights in this country are heading in the wrong direction.
