The U.S. Supreme Court is once again positioned to decide the future of Black political power in Louisiana. This time, the case centers on whether a congressional district map—drawn under court order to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA)—should be struck down as unconstitutional.
The consolidated cases, Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, could have far-reaching consequences. The outcome may not only impact elections in Louisiana but also set a national precedent about the limits—or the erasure—of race-conscious redistricting in America.
This is not just a legal battle. It’s a referendum on whether Black voters in Louisiana are entitled to the same level of representation as their white counterparts.
How Louisiana Got a Second Black-Majority District
After the 2020 census, Louisiana lawmakers were tasked with redrawing the state’s six congressional districts. Despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of the state’s population, legislators approved a map that preserved just one Black-majority district. Civil rights advocates and voters challenged the map in federal court, arguing that it violated Section 2 of the VRA by diluting Black voting power.
Federal courts agreed. Both a district court and the conservative Fifth Circuit ruled that the original map likely violated the VRA and ordered the state to create a second Black-majority district. With the clock ticking before the 2024 elections, Louisiana’s legislature convened a special session to redraw the lines.
But instead of adopting a compact district proposed by Black plaintiffs—one that would have reflected long-established community boundaries in the Delta region—Republican lawmakers approved a sprawling district that stretched over 200 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge.
The decision wasn’t just about geography. Political considerations played a significant role. The new map protected Republican incumbents like Rep. Julia Letlow, House Speaker Mike Johnson, and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, while dismantling the district of GOP Congressman Garret Graves—who had recently clashed with Governor Jeff Landry. Political analysts and statehouse reporters noted that the move appeared calculated to shore up party loyalty while appearing to comply with the courts’ mandate.
The Lawsuit That Followed—and a New Legal Threat
Soon after the new map passed, a group of white voters filed a separate lawsuit. Their claim? That the newly drawn second Black-majority district constituted an illegal racial gerrymander because race predominated in its design.
In a 2–1 decision, a federal panel agreed and struck down the map. The Supreme Court intervened, issuing a stay that allowed the map to remain in place for the 2024 election, in which Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields was elected to represent the district.
But the stay was only temporary. What the Court decides this summer will determine whether the second Black-majority district survives—or whether it will be erased in time for the 2026 elections.
Why This Case Matters Far Beyond Louisiana
The potential precedent this case sets is what makes this case so dangerous. If the Court upholds the lower court’s ruling and strikes down the map, it could create a chilling effect on race-conscious redistricting—even when it’s done to remedy proven violations of the Voting Rights Act.
Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh raised the question during oral arguments of whether the legal framework used to enforce Section 2 should have an “expiration date.” That framework, established in the landmark 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles, has been central to protecting minority voting rights for nearly four decades.
If the Court signals that drawing majority-Black districts—especially under court order—is constitutionally suspect, it could disincentivize states from complying with the VRA at all. Worse, it could open the door for more reverse-discrimination lawsuits from white plaintiffs, weaponizing the Equal Protection Clause to undo decades of civil rights progress.
That’s not hypothetical. Voting rights experts have warned that this line of reasoning could be used to challenge similar districts in Georgia, Alabama, and North Carolina, where racial gerrymandering and voter suppression efforts are already under scrutiny.
Erasing Black Representation Is the Goal—Let’s Not Pretend Otherwise
Louisiana’s Black communities didn’t ask for a racial gerrymander—they asked for a fair shot at representation. The original plaintiffs even offered a map that better respected race-neutral principles and compactness than the legislature’s version. But instead of adopting that map, lawmakers drew a convoluted one designed to protect political power, not restore justice.
Now, the very map created to address racial discrimination is being challenged for considering race at all.
The logic is infuriating—and familiar. Ever since the Supreme Court’s 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder gutted the preclearance provisions of the VRA, states have tested the limits of what they can get away with. In 2019, the Court ruled in Rucho v. Common Cause that partisan gerrymandering is beyond the reach of federal courts, even when it clearly dilutes minority votes.
If the justices now decide that even remedial maps are too race-conscious, they will have completed the blueprint for rolling back the Voting Rights Act—while pretending they’re simply upholding the Constitution.
The Map Is Only the Beginning
This case isn’t about cartography. It’s about whether Black communities in Louisiana—and across the country—have a real say in who represents them. It’s about whether courts and lawmakers will be allowed to correct racial discrimination, or whether any attempt to do so will be treated as suspect.
And it’s about whether the most fundamental principle of democracy—one person, one vote—applies to everyone, or only to those whose power was never under threat.
We’ve seen these attacks before. We know what’s at stake.
