Understanding the Supreme Court’s Stance on Racial Gerrymandering: Louisiana v. Callais

The Supreme Court’s recent oral arguments in the case of Louisiana v. Callais have raised significant concerns regarding the reliability of the Court’s precedents in racial gerrymandering disputes. This hearing appears to challenge the notion that the Court can be trusted to uphold its own rulings consistently.

Context of the Case

To grasp the implications of Callais, it is essential to look back at a similar case decided just two years earlier—Allen v. Milligan (2023). In that ruling, the Court found that Alabama’s congressional map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the political power of Black citizens. The Court ordered Alabama to create an additional district with a Black majority.

Louisiana’s argument mirrors that of Alabama; indeed, state attorneys have acknowledged that Callais “presents the same question” as its predecessor. In theory, a consistent application of the law would necessitate Louisiana to also draw a second Black-majority district.

The Current Landscape

After extensive legal battles, Louisiana complied with federal court orders and implemented new maps containing two Black-majority districts. However, during the arguments for Callais, justices appeared to sidestep their own recent decisions. The six Republican justices on the bench were inclined to find reasons to invalidate these maps. Notably, Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Barrett had previously dissented in Milligan, while Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh, who sided with the majority in that ruling, voiced skepticism toward Louisiana’s maps.

This contradiction casts some uncertainty over whether the Court will uphold Louisiana’s new maps or take a more drastic approach in future cases, potentially undermining nearly four decades of voting rights protections.

The Route to the Supreme Court

Callais is one of two related cases regarding Louisiana’s congressional maps. Before this case was filed, a previous federal ruling declared Louisiana’s original maps illegal due to their lack of compliance with the Voting Rights Act—as outlined in the pivotal Thornburg v. Gingles (1986) decision.

Following multiple judicial assessments, Louisiana acknowledged the illegality of its original maps and chose to create new ones that conformed to the court’s directives. Nonetheless, challenges to these newly drawn maps emerged in the Callais case, asserting that the state improperly emphasized race in its redistricting efforts. This legal dilemma arose even though the law permits considerations of race under the Voting Rights Act when necessary.

Constitutional Questions at Stake

Ultimately, the Callais case questions whether a state can fulfill a court’s order requiring the creation of two Black-majority districts while being accused of racial overreach in the process. Notably, judicial precedents affirm that states may adopt race-conscious districting when justified by substantial evidence, which Louisiana possessed given the rulings made against its earlier maps.

Still, two of the judges on the reviewing panel struck down Louisiana’s new maps. This situation has placed the state in a precarious situation, caught between contradictory court directives—one urging compliance with federal orders and the other inhibiting the newly drawn districts.

The Justices’ Perspectives

In the Callais hearings, the Justices’ line of questioning indicated a desire among some members, particularly Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, to revisit the substantive legal principles established in the previous Robinson case. Their skepticism suggests a potential shift in the judicial landscape concerning voters’ rights.

Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kavanaugh’s inquiries hinted at an inclination to reevaluate the legitimacy of the current maps, with Roberts even expressing concerns about the legibility of certain district shapes. Kavanaugh’s advocacy for a sunset on voting rights protections adds another layer of complexity, potentially setting a precedent for undermining the Voting Rights Act gradually.

Implications for Future Voting Rights Law

A striking decision against Louisiana’s maps would not only undermine compliance with existing laws but could also set a precedent for challenging the protections offered by the Voting Rights Act. With no change in the Court’s composition since Milligan, legal observers have expressed concern that any departure from established rulings would signify a troubling inconsistency in the Supreme Court’s approach to electoral equity.

As the arguments in Callais unfold, the broader implications for American democracy and voting rights remain to be seen. If the Court deviates from its recent precedents, it could jeopardize the principle of predictable and stable legal frameworks, leaving many to question the reliability of the judicial system.