Louisiana v. Callais

Questions presented

SCOTUS records

1. Over the State's strenuous objections, the Middle District of Louisiana held, Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (M.D. La. 2022)-and the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023)-that Louisiana likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by failing to create a second majority-Black congressional district. The Fifth Circuit gave the Legislature a small window of time to adopt its own remedial plan, or else the State would have to go to trial, which would almost certainly end in the Middle District imposing its own preferred map. Rather than acquiesce in the Middle District's preferences, the Legislature reclaimed its sovereign redistricting pen and passed S.B. 8, which created a second majority-Black district as the courts demanded, protected the Legislature's sovereign prerogatives, and achieved its political goals. In this case, a majority of a three-judge court sitting in the Western District of Louisiana enjoined S.B. 8 as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The questions presented are:
2. Did the majority err in finding that race predominated in the Legislature's enactment of S.B. 8?
3. Did the majority err in finding that S.B. 8 fails strict scrutiny?
4. Did the majority err in subjecting S.B. 8 to the Gingles preconditions?
5. Is this action non-justiciable?

Opinion summary

Etalia.ai summary of the majority opinion

Louisiana challenged a congressional map after it was redrawn to include a second majority-black district. The Court held that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create that additional district, so race could not justify the State’s use of race in drawing SB8. The Court read Section 2 to focus on whether minority voters have less opportunity than others to elect representatives of their choice, but said that properly understood the statute enforces only intentional racial discrimination and must be applied through an updated Gingles framework. Under that framework, the plaintiffs had not shown a viable Section 2 violation because their proposed maps did not satisfy the State’s legitimate goals, their voting analysis did not control for party affiliation, and their totality-of-circumstances evidence did not show an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination. The Court therefore affirmed and remanded.

Dissent summary

Etalia.ai summary of the dissenting opinions

Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. She argued that Congress wrote Section 2 to bar electoral schemes that result in minority voters having less opportunity than others to elect candidates of their choice, without requiring proof of discriminatory motive. She said the Court’s new approach rewrites that statute, departs from Gingles and Allen, and will make Section 2 largely ineffective in places where residential segregation and racially polarized voting still matter. She warned that the decision would allow minority communities to be cracked out of effective political participation and would sharply reduce minority representation.