Quick Takeaways
- Louisiana v. Callais asks whether creating a second majority-Black district violates the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
- Civil rights groups say overturning Section 2 could erase decades of progress, threatening minority representation from Congress to city councils.
- Roughly 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Hispanic Caucus could be redistricted out of office if the Court strikes down Section 2.
Voting rights activists were relieved in 2023 when, in a surprise to many, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the most important remaining element of the Voting Rights Act.
That ruling forced Alabama — and later Louisiana — to redraw their congressional maps to give Black residents greater representation, moves that ultimately sent two additional Black lawmakers to Washington.
Now, two years later, the law is back before the Court in Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could decide the future of the Voting Rights Act’s Section 2 — and with it, the balance of political power for minority voters across the country.
What’s at Stake
Civil rights groups including Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund are sounding the alarm about what this case could mean. They warn that if the Court weakens or overturns Section 2, the results could be devastating for minority representation.
According to data from these groups, roughly 30% of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11% of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could be redistricted out of their seats if states are no longer required to consider race when drawing maps.
At the heart of Wednesday’s arguments lies a single, powerful question — one with far-reaching consequences:
Will the Court, with the same lineup of justices who upheld the law in 2023, now change its mind?
What Is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?
Section 2 is the main way voters can challenge racially discriminatory election practices. For nearly 50 years, another part of the law — Section 5 — required certain states and counties with a history of racial discrimination to get federal approval before changing their election rules. Most of those jurisdictions were in the South.
In 2013, the Supreme Court’s Shelby v. Holder decision effectively ended that “preclearance” system, freeing states from federal oversight. Many Republican-controlled legislatures then passed new voting restrictions — a trend that accelerated after Donald Trump’s false claims of fraud following the 2020 election.
Without Section 5, Section 2 became the law’s last major safeguard. If the Court now strikes or weakens it, experts warn that the Voting Rights Act would lose its core strength.
“When Section 5 existed, it caught a lot of the problems that would have turned into Section 2 litigation,” said Binny Miller, a law professor at American University. “Without those two pillars, it’s much harder to challenge discrimination.”
How Louisiana Got Here
Louisiana’s Republican-controlled Legislature redrew the state’s congressional map in 2022, keeping five majority-white districts and one majority-Black district — despite the state’s population being about one-third Black.
Civil rights groups challenged the map, and both a district court and a federal appeals court found it likely violated Section 2.
The Supreme Court paused that ruling while it decided a similar case from Alabama. When the justices upheld Section 2 there, Alabama created a second majority-Black district, which led to the election of Rep. Shomari Figures.
Afterward, Louisiana’s new governor, Jeff Landry, called on lawmakers to draw a comparable map with two districts giving Black voters the chance to elect candidates of their choice — while still protecting safe Republican seats, including those of House Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
The result was a new 6th Congressional District — stretching more than 200 miles from Shreveport through Alexandria and Baton Rouge — now represented by Democrat Cleo Fields.
A Challenge From White Plaintiffs
In January 2024, a group of self-described “non-African American” voters sued, arguing that the new map was unconstitutional because race was the dominant factor in drawing it.
They contend that Louisiana’s plan violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment, saying it prioritized racial targets over neutral redistricting standards such as compactness and continuity.
The Supreme Court first heard Louisiana v. Callais in March 2025 but issued no decision, instead requesting new arguments — an unusual move that signaled internal disagreement.
Why the Case Is Being Argued Again
The justices are now reconsidering the question:
Does intentionally creating a second majority-minority congressional district violate the 14th or 15th Amendments?
Those Reconstruction-era amendments were written to secure full political equality for newly freed Black Americans.
But Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued that using race in redistricting — even to protect minority voters — conflicts with the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection.
In simpler terms, Thomas believes the government should be race-neutral when drawing districts, and that federal law cannot authorize racial considerations that the Constitution forbids.
Ahead of the rehearing, Louisiana dropped its defense of the map it drew and urged the Court to reject race-based redistricting altogether.
What Could Happen Next
The Court could send the case back to a lower court to rework the map — or, in a sweeping ruling, it could declare that Section 2 itself conflicts with the Constitution’s equal-protection principles.
If that happens, the effects would reach far beyond Louisiana or Alabama. The 2023 decision that created Alabama’s second Black district would almost certainly be undone, along with Louisiana’s newly drawn seat.
More broadly, legal experts say the ruling could dismantle decades of precedent that allowed courts to ensure fair representation for minority voters.
The Bigger Picture
Section 2 isn’t just about congressional seats. About three-quarters of all Section 2 cases involve local elections — city councils, county commissions, and school boards — where racial gerrymandering has long limited minority voices.
“If the Court weakens Section 2,” said Kareem Crayton, senior director for voting and representation at the Brennan Center for Justice, “it doesn’t just change Congress — it changes who governs entire communities.”
Another case involving two Native American tribes in North Dakota also hinges on Section 2. If the justices strike down or sharply limit the provision in Louisiana v. Callais, that lawsuit and dozens of others could effectively vanish overnight.
The Associated Press contributed heavily to this story.