The Justice Department is urging the Supreme Court to strike down Louisiana’s race-based redistricting plan as unconstitutional, putting decades-old voting rights precedent under direct challenge.
According to the Washington Examiner, the DOJ filed a brief asserting that Louisiana’s creation of a second Black-majority congressional district violated the Constitution because it prioritized racial considerations in the redistricting process. The filing also called on the justices to revisit and scale back the Supreme Court’s landmark 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, which set the current framework for Section 2 claims under the Voting Rights Act.
The high court is set to hear rearguments in Louisiana v. Callais on Oct. 15, where the justices will consider whether the state’s deliberate creation of an additional majority-minority district runs afoul of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. The case follows litigation that has dogged Louisiana’s congressional maps for years, raising broader questions about the role of race and politics in redistricting.
Louisiana lawmakers originally approved a congressional map earlier this decade that gave Republicans a 5-1 seat advantage, with the lone Democratic district being the sole Black-majority seat. Civil rights plaintiffs sued under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, arguing that the state’s Black population was large enough to justify a second majority-minority district under the Gingles test.
A federal court ordered the legislature to redraw the map, and lawmakers ultimately approved a new version that created a 4-2 seat split, including two Black-majority districts. While civil rights groups celebrated the change, it quickly gave rise to another legal dispute from voters who claimed the map impermissibly elevated race as the deciding factor.
Louisiana refused to defend the redrawn map in later proceedings, instead urging the justices to disband the Gingles framework altogether. That unusual move aligned the state with the Justice Department, which also called on the court to reconsider its decades-old precedent.
In its filing, the DOJ characterized the current use of Gingles as a “misguided application” that forces race-predominant districting even when states’ motives may be purely political. The department argued that this court-crafted framework has veered away from prohibiting genuine discrimination and instead fosters unconstitutional “electoral race-based affirmative action.”
The DOJ insisted that states now often pursue political—not racial—objectives when refusing to create additional majority-minority districts. It warned that enforcing Section 2 under current rules improperly prevents legislatures from prioritizing legitimate partisan interests.
“Properly construed, Section 2’s ‘results’ test should never have compelled race-predominant districting,” the DOJ brief read. “Too often, Section 2 is deployed as a form of electoral race-based affirmative action to undo a state’s constitutional pursuit of political ends.”
The central question before the justices is whether intentionally creating a second majority-minority district in Louisiana violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments. The outcome could reshape how courts handle minority representation in redistricting cases nationwide.
A ruling against the Gingles precedent could limit Section 2’s reach, making it more difficult for voters to challenge maps on the basis of racial vote dilution. This could disrupt congressional maps not only in Louisiana but across southern states that have drawn similar districts under existing legal standards.
The implications extend beyond political balance, potentially affecting how legislatures reconcile competing demands between racial representation and traditional districting factors. The court’s decision could set new constitutional limits on how lawmakers consider race in election laws.
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, is scheduled for reargument on Oct. 15, just four months after the justices held off on issuing a ruling following initial arguments earlier this year. This time, the justices specifically instructed lawyers to address the constitutional dimension of the issue.
The high court’s upcoming session begins Oct. 6, when it will hear several major disputes. In addition to the Louisiana case, the justices are set to take up a First Amendment challenge to Colorado’s ban on conversion therapy for minors.
Final rulings on both cases are expected by the end of June 2026, potentially reshaping not only redistricting law but also the scope of free speech and civil rights protections in several areas.