politics
Supreme Court Limits Voting Rights Act in 6-3 Louisiana Redistricting Case
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais, adjusting interpretations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to focus on intentional discrimination. The ruling invalidated a Louisiana map creating a majority-Black district. Former President Barack Obama criticized the decision, while supporters hailed it as promoting legal consistency.
The Free PressAudio version
Tap play to generate a narrated version.
The U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 decision in Louisiana v. Callais on April 29, 2026. The ruling adjusts how courts apply Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when plaintiffs challenge state legislative maps. Justice Samuel Alito led the majority opinion, which holds that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act cannot constitutionally enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting maps based solely on disparate impacts.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits practices or procedures that deny or abridge the right to vote on the basis of race. For more than a generation, the Supreme Court interpreted Section 2 to require drawing electoral districts to allocate representation to racial blocs in certain situations.
The Constitution forbids drawing electoral districts where race predominated in voter assignment unless it meets strict scrutiny as serving a compelling interest in the least discriminatory way.
The Supreme Court had previously avoided deciding whether complying with Voting Rights Act requirements could satisfy strict scrutiny as a compelling interest. The Callais decision adjusts tests from the 1986 case Thornburg v. Gingles to reflect the actual words of Section 2 and refocus on intentional racial discrimination prohibited by the Fifteenth Amendment.
Under Callais, Section 2 imposes liability only when circumstances give rise to a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred. The Gingles test from 1986 required plaintiffs to show: (1) the racial minority was sufficiently numerous in a compact area to constitute a majority in an additional reasonably configured district; (2) the minority was politically cohesive; (3) a racial majority bloc-voted sufficiently to defeat preferred candidates; and (4) the totality of circumstances reflected a local political process unequally open to minority voters.
The Callais decision revises the first prong of the Gingles test to require plaintiffs to draw a demonstrative map without basing it on race, and the map must meet legal legislative priorities at least as well as the challenged map.
