Louisiana v. Callais

Today (April 29, 2026) the Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais. As Justice Kagan noted in her dissent, the decision is the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

What You Need to Know

Facts of this Case: In the wake of the 2020 Census, which showed Louisiana’s Black population had grown to one-third of the state’s total population, the Louisiana state legislature passed a new congressional map, HB 1, with only one majority-Black district out of the state’s six total districts. A group of individual Black Louisiana voters joined with two organizational plaintiffs to challenge the map under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, claiming vote dilution. As a result of that litigation, federal courts ordered the state legislature to pass a new map that complied with the VRA. Legislators passed SB 8 to create a second majority-Black district but drew the lines in such a way as to prioritize protecting incumbents over traditional concerns like compactness. The map created by SB 8 was challenged by a separate group of plaintiffs, including Mr. Callais, as a racial gerrymander. A three-judge court held that the newly created second majority-Black district violated the Equal Protection Clause and enjoined the state from using the map in any future elections.

Relevant Precedent: In 1980, the Court held in City of Mobile v. Bolden that a voting system employed by Mobile did not violate the 14th and 15th Amendments because there was no evidence of discriminatory intent. In 1982, Congress passed an amendment to Section 2, in response to the Bolden decision, explicitly barring the use of any election process that had discriminatory impact, even if there was no evidence of discriminatory intent. In the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles, the Court established a test to determine if an electoral map created impermissible vote dilution because of discriminatory impact. Over time, the Court refined but ultimately upheld and applied this test. In fact, less than three years ago, the Supreme Court upheld the Gingles test in a remarkably similar case called Allen v. Milligan. As ACS observed at the time, the decision meant that “the Roberts Court chose to adhere — for a change — to decades of its own precedent and uphold Section 2.” Sadly, the Roberts Court did not wait long to reverse course. After hearing argument and receiving full briefing in Louisiana v. Callais during its last term, the Court held the case over and asked for re-argument this term on the constitutionality of Section 2.

What did the Court decide: In a 6-3 decision, the Court found that the SB 8 map, creating a second Black-majority district, created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Justice Alito, writing for the majority, purported to narrow and refine the Gingles test that has been used for decades by federal courts to adjudicate vote dilution claims brought under Section 2 cases but in fact narrowed the test so dramatically as to render it practically impossible for plaintiffs to succeed. Justice Kagan, writing in dissent, described the decision as the “latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.”

Why It Matters: The Voting Rights Act was the crown jewel of the civil rights movement and was one of the most successful pieces of civil rights legislation in our nation’s history. In her dissent, Justice Kagan noted the VRA “ushered in an awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality.” Today’s decision pushes us further from those ideals than we have been in decades. In the hours since the decision was released, lawmakers in Tennessee and Alabama have rushed to push their state legislatures to redraw maps to target minority communities for partisan advantage. The Florida House of Representatives voted on an aggressively gerrymandered new map that would give Republicans up to four new seats in the state’s congressional delegation. And as ACS New York Lawyer Chapter Board Member Michael Li found in a report for the Brennan Center, the greatest impact of the 1982 amendments to the VRA have been felt at the local level. As U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock observed today, the decision in Callais is “a profound defeat for American democracy.” The effects of this decision will be felt at every level of government for decades if left intact.

How You Can Learn More

For more information about the cases on the Court’s docket this term, make sure to catch the video of our SCOTUS Preview program.