Co-authored by Amanda Karras, Executive Director/General Counsel, International Municipal Lawyers Association
On Wednesday, April 19, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (PDF) that struck down Louisiana’s redistricting maps by significantly modifying the test courts must use to determine if a claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) for race-based vote dilution may proceed. More simply said, to prove whether a claim can proceed, a litigant must assert that a minority group has less opportunity than other voters to elect representatives of their choice.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court held that a Section 2 claim will only succeed where “evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race” and not other nonracial factors (like partisan advantage). That is because Section 2 of the VRA “was designed to enforce the Constitution— not collide with it.”
The Court explained the “general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race” and that such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny. Under the new Callais test, if a map can be explained by the legislature seeking partisan advantage, then that will likely doom a Section 2 claim.
In this case, the Court found compliance with Section 2 “could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting” and the State’s use of the 2022 map with the second majority-Black district was therefore an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Case Background
In this case, after the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its congressional districts. While the State’s population was approximately one-third African American, there was only one majority-Black district. A group of African American voters sued, and in 2022, a federal judge struck down the map as likely violating Section 2 of the VRA as impermissibly diluting minority voting power and ordered the State to draw a new map with a second majority-Black district.
The State complied; that new map, with a second majority-Black district, was challenged by a group of non-African American voters as a racial gerrymander in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. A new three-judge panel held that the map violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.
The Supreme Court heard oral argument last term. At the time, Louisiana argued it did not engage in racial gerrymandering, but that it had drawn the new second majority-Black district in a way for partisan advantage that would protect certain incumbents in Congress. In an unusual move, the Supreme Court did not issue a decision last term and instead held the case over for the current term and ordered new arguments on the question of whether “the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates” either the 14th Amendment or the 15th Amendment, which bars the government from denying or restricting voting rights based on race.
Impact to Cities
The result of the opinion is a narrowing of the VRA, which will remove checks on partisan-driven redistricting by requiring proof of intentional discrimination rather than just discriminatory results. This decision goes beyond congressional districts and could impact state legislature districts and councilmanic districts, thus directly impacting redistricting decisions in cities, towns and villages. As such, cities can be sued under the VRA, and it will be important for local elected officials to consult with their general counsel to understand obligations in redistricting. Additionally, while this case isn’t technically a partisan gerrymandering case, it likely invites more partisan gerrymandering; this is something that can result in excessive preemption of local governments in a manner that is democratically suspect.
Learn More
Get more information about Legal Advocacy at the National League of Cities.
About the Author
2026 Elections: Local Government Roles and Responsibilities
From the Event: What to Expect from the Current Supreme Court Term
2024-2025 Supreme Court Term Roundup: Decisions Important to Local Government
- Stephanie Martinez-Ruckman
From-the-Event: Supreme Court Review for Local Governments: 2024-2025
Supreme Court Rules on Nationwide Injunctions
- Stephanie Martinez-Ruckman
District Court Issues Preliminary Injunction on Immigration Conditions for Federal Transportation Grants
- Stephanie Martinez-Ruckman
- Brittney D. Kohler
- Yucel Ors