Louisiana’s New Congressional Map Faces Supreme Court Test—Here’s What’s at Stake

LAFAYETTE, La. (KPEL News) - The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments Monday in Louisiana v. Callais, a closely watched redistricting case that could redefine how states balance compliance with federal voting rights law against constitutional limits on race-based districting.

At issue is Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map, passed after multiple federal courts found the state likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by offering only one majority-Black district. The new map added a second such district, but opponents now claim it is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

Get our free mobile app

The Court’s decision in this case may carry major implications for how legislatures across the country respond to federal court orders while drawing electoral maps.

Louisiana’s Map and the Voting Rights Act

The case stems from Robinson v. Ardoin, where a federal district court—and later the Fifth Circuit—concluded that Louisiana’s congressional map diluted Black voting strength in violation of the Voting Rights Act. The court instructed the state to add a second majority-Black district.

Rather than adopt the court’s proposed remedial map, the Louisiana Legislature passed its own version—Senate Bill 8 (SB8). While the map technically added a second majority-Black district, it did so by drawing a district stretching from Baton Rouge to Shreveport, raising concerns about compactness and traditional redistricting standards.

READ MORE:

12 “Non-African American” Louisiana Voters File Suit Over New Congressional Map

Louisiana May Get Another Minority Congressional District

Supporters say the Legislature acted to comply with court demands while protecting political incumbents. Opponents say race was the predominant factor in the map’s design, violating the Equal Protection Clause.

Louisiana’s Defense: Complying with Court Orders and Preserving Political Balance

Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga presented the state’s case to the Court, arguing the Legislature had strong legal grounds for the map. He made three central points:

1. The plaintiffs challenging the map lacked standing.
2. The Legislature’s redistricting decisions were driven by political considerations, not racial ones.
3. Even if race played a role, the state had a “good reason”—compliance with binding court rulings under the Voting Rights Act.

Aguiñaga emphasized that the new district shares significant overlap with the map proposed in Robinson and that the Legislature aimed to avoid court intervention that could threaten incumbents such as Speaker Mike Johnson.

Challengers Argue "Race Predominated" Mapmaking

Attorney Stuart Naifeh, representing the plaintiffs, argued that the Legislature relied too heavily on race when drawing the map. He claimed the new district was not narrowly tailored to satisfy the Voting Rights Act and was more racially driven than necessary.

Naifeh also pointed out that the Legislature’s map was less compact and coherent than the court’s proposed alternative and failed to follow traditional redistricting principles.

Justices Press Both Sides on Race, Politics, and Court Compliance
The Justices showed a range of views during oral argument, with no clear consensus emerging.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that the state sidestepped a more compact, legally sound map in favor of one shaped primarily by race. Justice Elena Kagan appeared more open to Louisiana’s reasoning, noting the state had lost repeatedly in court and needed flexibility to act.

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson suggested the state’s motivations might have been more political than racial, which could affect the constitutional analysis.

Conversely, Justice Neil Gorsuch and Justice Samuel Alito raised questions about whether a vacated preliminary injunction could justify race-based mapmaking. Alito also questioned whether the lower courts had properly applied the framework established in Thornburg v. Gingles, a foundational case interpreting the Voting Rights Act.

What the Court Must Decide

The central legal question is whether Louisiana’s redistricting plan, enacted under court pressure, still violates the Constitution by allowing race to predominate. If the Court rules against the state, it could impose tighter restrictions on how race can be used—even when states are responding to alleged violations of federal law.

Alternatively, a ruling in Louisiana’s favor would give states more discretion to balance court-mandated remedies with political realities, especially when trying to preserve incumbent protection and electoral continuity.

Get our free mobile app

Broader Impact on Southern States and Election Law

While the case focuses on Louisiana, the outcome could reshape redistricting standards in other states, including Georgia, Alabama, and Texas. All are navigating similar legal battles over minority representation and compliance with the Voting Rights Act.

Louisiana v. Callais is more than a debate over district lines—it’s a test of how far a state can go to comply with federal law without violating constitutional limits on the use of race. As the Court weighs its options, states across the country are watching closely.

A decision is expected by the end of June, just in time to affect the 2024 congressional elections.