NAACP Legal Defense Fund: Louisiana v. Callais

Source: NAACP
Type: news-reporting

Source Text

Louisiana v. Callais Ruling

On Apr. 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais, a landmark voting rights case. The Supreme Court’s decision eviscerated  Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a critical and sacred civil rights protection. Make no mistake: this decision threatens the political power of Black communities. The decision was a devastating blow to critical civil rights protections by permitting states to use partisan gerrymandering as a wholesale excuse to deny Black voters a voice in their government.

The Court’s decision threatens to further divide our nation and entrench power in the hands of the few. It puts the diversity of our elected bodies and representation of all communities at risk. As a result of the decision, fair districts across the nation will likely vanish as legislatures aim to gut representation for voters of color without checkpoints from the courts.As Justice Kagan stated in the dissent, “[t]oday’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter” in the vast majority of cases.

Louisiana v. Callais has always been about equal representation, but the outcome in this case will reverberate through redistricting law nationwide. While in name the Court majority has upheld the test to prove racial discrimination, they have made partisan goals a wholesale defense for racism.

What’s at stake in Louisiana v. Callais ?

Louisiana v. Callais is a seminal redistricting case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that focused on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map. In its decison, the Court struck down Louisiana’s former congressional map, known as SB 8, that provided two majority-Black districts in 2024. That prior map was enacted following years of litigation under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Robinson v. Landry. The decision gutted Section 2 of the VRA.

Partisan gerrymandering has time and again been used as a cover for racial discrimination. And the Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais could open the floodgates for more of the underhanded manipulation and voter dilution we’ve seen play out time and again in Black communities and other communities of color. Louisiana v. Callais has always been about equal representation, but the outcome in this case will reverberate through redistricting law nationwide. While in name the Court majority has upheld the test to prove racial discrimination, they have made partisan goals a wholesale defense for racism.

Section 2 was rightly named the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement by earlier compositions of this Court. The Court has now allowed discrimination to run rampant as long as state mapmakers cite even the most tenuous justification. This is a setback for our country and our constitution which grants Congress the authority to address the scourge of racial discrimination in voting. 

Voters of color have never been given anything, and they’ve especially never been handed a representative who fights for their interests and needs. We’ve had to fight for every single opportunity district that exists. We have had to fight for every single aspect of our multi-racial democracy. 

Louisiana v. Callais FAQ
Oral Argument Transcript
Decision

“The Supreme Court has reversed decades of progress toward a multiracial democracy in the name of partisan politics. The 6-3 majority decision is the height of hypocrisy and exemplifies the Court’s waning credibility on matters of civil rights and racial justice. The ruling is devastating for Black Louisiana voters and for fair representation for all voters of color”

What We do Now

We will continue to fight for the future of our multiracial democracy. The work will be more challenging due to this decision, but we were built for this moment. Democracy will not fall on our watch. We will demand new legislation to protect voters and continue to fight to defend and advance civil rights for all people and to protect our democracy as our institutions continue to fail us. This fight will continue in the courts, in statehouses, in the streets and most importantly at the ballot box until the promise of our multiracial democracy is realized. What the Court did not do and cannot do is take away our fundamental right to vote, and it is incumbent on every American to exercise that right now more than ever in service of our democracy. 

We must fight in the legislatures, in the courts, and at the ballot box for the future of our multiracial democracy.

At the Ballot Box

• Everyone must be prepared to vote in the primaries and in November. It’s our responsibility to ensure our communities feel the urgency to exercise our power and make our voices heard.
• Ensure you are registered, check that you have the required materials to vote by mail or in person, and create a voting plan with your friends and family to show up at the polls.

Register to Vote
Confirm Your Voter Registration
Create a Voting Plan
See What’s on Your Ballot
Check what Documents You Need
Find Your Polling Place

In the Legislatures

• As state legislatures across the country push unfair maps, communities must also ensure their voices are heard in the process and fair maps are the only result.
• Engage with your community. Mobilize and organize with allies on the ground. In order to realize our vision of a multi-racial democracy, we must put constant pressure on our elected officials to create a fair and representative electoral system.
• This is the moment to push for broader, bolder, voting rights protections. States must enact State Voting Rights Acts and Congress must pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.

In the Courts

• We must demand that our courts’ rulings reflect the promise of our laws, the principles of our Constitution, and the promise of democracy. We must continue to pursue every avenue to defend and advance fair representation in the courts.
• While this ruling narrows our paths to justice, we will march on in both state and federal courts. Our fights for justice must be bolder than ever.

Case Details: Deep Dive

In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court considered whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black district that was required by the Voting Rights Act is still a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In its decision, the Court eviscerated what was long hailed as the crown jewel of the Civil Rights Movement.

At the Supreme Court, LDF argued that the map should remain because it satisfies both the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. LDF made the case that the 2024 map fairly recognizes the political power of Black Louisianians, who make up one third of the state’s population and face continued patterns of discrimination in voting and civic life, while balancing other redistricting priorities — in stark contrast to the discriminatory map passed by the state legislature in 2022, which federal courts determined likely violated the VRA by including only one district where Black voters had an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.

More Case Details

The case came on appeal following a divided district court decision finding that Louisiana’s map, which included an additional majority-Black congressional district to remedy a likely Voting Rights Act (VRA) violation, was a racial gerrymander.

In Robinson v. Landry, the Middle District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further affirmed that the Louisiana Legislature likely violated the VRA when passing a map in 2022 that provided Black voters an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in only one district. As a result, in 2024, Louisiana had to redraw its congressional map to include two districts where Black voters had an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in order to comply with Section 2 of the VRA.

In January 2024, a group of non-Black voters challenged the 2024 map as a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in Callais v. Landry. The voters claimed, despite contrary facts, that “race was the sole reason” for the district lines. The lawsuit aimed to once again undermine the political power of Black Louisianians. The same Black voters who filed Robinson v. Landry stepped in as intervening defendants in Callais to defend the 2024 map with two majority-Black districts and ensure that the rights of Black voters are protected. Their continued fight is about fairness, opportunity, and representation.

When a divided panel of three district court judges found the map unconstitutional and overturned it, the Robinson litigants and State defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which paused the lower court’s ruling and allowed for the 2024 map to remain in place for the 2024 election cycle. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case, consolidated under Louisiana v. Callais. After oral arguments in March 2025, the court opted to schedule the case for reargument rather than issue a decision by the end of the spring term.

Reargument Details

In its reargument order, the Supreme Court narrowed its focus to the constitutionality of Section 2 of the VRA. In the Aug. 1, 2025, order, the Court asked parties to submit supplemental briefs that address the question “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.” Section 2 of the VRA prohibits state and local governments from using any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen…to vote on account of race or color.” Section 2 is essential for challenging racial discrimination in voting.

Since its passage, the VRA has been a critical tool to push back against formidable forms of racial voter suppression — including literacy tests, poll taxes, and racially dilutive electoral maps. The protections of the VRA and Constitution were designed to prevent discrimination and ensure that Black voters are not shut out of the political process. Section 2 safeguards our democracy.

Louisiana’s Long Fight for Fair Maps

From their communities, to state legislative chambers, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Black Louisianians have united to demand legislative districts that reflect their unique interests. For too long, their opportunities have been shaped by Louisiana’s repeated history of discrimination. Their march for a fair congressional map has been long and winding.

Read: Case Timeline

From their communities, to state legislative chambers, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Black Louisianians have united to demand legislative districts that reflect their unique interests. For too long, their opportunities have been shaped by Louisiana’s repeated history of discrimination. Their march to a fair congressional map has been long and winding.

The 2020 census revealed that Louisiana’s Black population increased to one third of the state’s population. In 2021 and 2022, community members and civil rights attorneys mobilized across the state to call for fair and representative maps at public hearings hosted by state lawmakers. Specifically, they urged lawmakers to pass maps that complied with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the VRA They noted that current patterns of discrimination in Louisiana required the state to enact a new congressional map with two districts designed to ensure Black voters would have an equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice. 

However, when tasked with passing a new map for the state’s six congressional districts in 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed a map, HB 1, that had only one majority-Black district and failed to provide fair representation to Black voters. Shortly after, individual Black voters — including Dr. Press Robinson, Edgar Cage, Dr. Dorothy Nairne, Bishop Edwin René Soulé, Dr. Alice Washington, Reverand Clee Earnest Lowe, Commissioner Davante Lewis, Martha Davis, and Ambrose Sims — along with organizational plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, filed a lawsuit, Robinson v. Landry (then Robinson v. Ardoin), challenging the map as a violation of Section 2. The Robinson Plaintiffs argued that Louisiana’s map violated Section 2 by weakening Black Louisianians’ voting power.

After years of litigation, federal courts gave the Louisiana Legislature until the end of January 2024 to pass a map that complied with the VRA. During a special legislative session ending on Jan. 19, 2024, the Legislature passed a map that included a second majority-Black district, SB 8. However, unlike the maps the Robinson plaintiffs endorsed in the courts and at the state capitol, SB 4, which placed the new district along the Mississippi Delta between Baton Rouge and Monroe, SB 8 created a new majority-Black district by connecting communities in Baton Rouge and Shreveport, following the Red River and I-49. Legislators cited political priorities for this choice — namely, preserving the districts of preferred and powerful incumbents, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.

Shortly after SB 8 became law, a group of “non-African American voters” filed a new lawsuit, Callais v. Landry, challenging the enacted map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Callais Plaintiffs claimed that “race was the sole reason” for the passage of the map. The Robinson Plaintiffs quickly intervened in Callais to defend the rights of Black voters to have a fair and representative map in 2024 — and beyond. 

After a three-day trial, a divided panel of three federal court judges overturned the map. The majority held that legislators improperly prioritized race, and that the map was not narrowly designed to comply with the VRA, despite the Robinson federal court rulings. The Robinson Intervenors and State Defendants quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to pause the district court’s order until after the 2024 elections.

The Robinson v. Landry litigants pointed to lawmakers’ stated political objectives when passing the map — including protecting incumbents such as Speaker Johnson — as evidence that race alone did not dictate the map’s district lines. When the district court found the map unconstitutional and overturned it, the Robinson litigants and State defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which paused the lower court’s ruling and allowed for the 2024 map to remain in place for the 2024 election cycle.

On May 15, 2024, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay, pausing enforcement of the district court’s decision and allowing the 2024 elections to proceed on the districts drawn in SB 8, with two majority-Black districts. On the eve of the federal elections, November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in Louisiana v. Callais, affirming that the Court would hear oral arguments on the merits of the case and determine the fate of the map moving forward. Oral argument was held on March 24, 2025.

Months after the oral argument, the court made the rare decision to hold the case to be reargued rather than issue a ruling. This time, the justices asked parties to provide supplemental briefing on the narrower question of whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violated the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In weighing this question, the court overturned decades of settled law in relation to Louisiana’s congressional map.

The Supreme Court issued its decision in Louisiana v. Callais on Apr. 29, 2026. The ruling that struck down Louisiana’s map and gutted Section 2 of the VRA completely encroaches on Congress’ authority to enact laws that combat racism in voting. Voters of color should have a fair say in our democracy. Politicians should not choose their voters, voters should choose their politicians. This was a shameful decision from the Court

Case Documents
Oral Argument Transcript
Aug. 2025 Supplemental Brief
U.S. Supreme Court Jurisdictional Statement Filing
Robinson Plaintiffs Motion to intervene

Events Citing This Source

Event	Date	Category
Louisiana v Callais Voting Rights Act	Apr 29, 2026	Erosion of Democratic Norms

People Mentioned

Person	Role

Institutions Mentioned

Institution	Description

Related Sources

Source	Type	Publisher
Supreme Court - Louisiana v. Callais et Al	court-document	SupremeCourt.gov
Congressional Redistricting - High Court Narrows Voting Rights Act in Louisiana v. Callais	congressional-record	Congress.gov