WASHINGTON, D.C. – The U.S. Supreme Court has ordered further argument in the high-stakes redistricting case Louisiana v. Callais, a move that leaves the future of Black political representation in the state hanging in the balance.
In an unexpected decision issued June 27, 2025, the Court restored the case to its calendar for reargument during its next term, with a decision likely by mid-2026. The ruling affects Louisiana’s current congressional map (Senate Bill 8 or SB8), which features two majority-Black districts and will remain in effect in the interim.
The order did not explain the Court’s reasoning, but it will issue a future order setting the new argument date and specifying any additional legal questions for the parties to address. Justice Clarence Thomas issued a sharply worded dissent, accusing the Court of “punting without explanation” and warning that delays only deepen confusion over the balance between the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution’s Equal Protection Clause.
The legal conflict arose from Robinson v. Landry (originally Robinson v. Ardoin), a case filed by the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, and nine Black voters who successfully challenged the state’s 2022 congressional map. That map was found to violate Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by packing Black voters into a single district and diluting their voting power elsewhere. The Fifth Circuit upheld the ruling, prompting the legislature to pass SB8 in 2024 with two majority-Black districts.
But SB8 soon came under fire in a separate lawsuit, Callais v. Landry, brought by a group of self-identified “non-African American” voters who alleged the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. They argued that race was the predominant factor in drawing the new district lines, without sufficient justification under the Equal Protection Clause. The plaintiffs in the Robinson case intervened to defend the map, arguing it remedied a known Voting Rights Act violation and also considered other legitimate factors like protecting incumbents and uniting communities of interest.
A divided three-judge panel agreed with the Callais plaintiffs and struck down SB8 in early 2024, calling the second majority-Black district “a racial gerrymander” that “stretches some 250 miles… slicing through metropolitan areas to scoop up pockets of predominantly Black populations.”
However, the Supreme Court stayed that ruling in May 2024, allowing the 2024 elections to proceed under SB8. The map enabled Black voters to elect their preferred candidates in two districts for the first time in Louisiana’s recent history.
Stuart Naifeh of the Legal Defense Fund, who argued the case before the Court, emphasized the stakes in a statement following the June 27 order: “Black voters in Louisiana continue to face persistent and documented discrimination. A map with two districts where Black voters have an opportunity to elect candidates of choice, as SB8 has, is critical to ensuring Black voters can have their voices heard.”
Legal experts see Louisiana v. Callais as a pivotal test for how courts will balance the requirements of the Voting Rights Act with the Constitution’s restrictions on race-based policymaking. Justice Thomas, in his dissent, argued that current VRA jurisprudence has “broken beyond repair” and now mandates proportional racial representation without evidence of recent or specific discrimination. “This Court’s Section 2 jurisprudence is in direct conflict with the Constitution,” he wrote, calling on the Court to reconsider how much race can permissibly factor into districting.
Others strongly defended the map and the process behind it. “Before this case ever began, we had already won a hard-fought legal battle,” said Cecillia Wang, National Legal Director for the ACLU. “Thanks to the Supreme Court’s order from May 2024… the fair and legal map the Louisiana legislature enacted remains in place while the case continues.”
Ashley Shelton, president of the Power Coalition for Equity and Justice, said the organization remains focused on building lasting representation: “Today’s decision deferring the case does not shake our focus… We will continue to advocate for a map that reflects our communities and upholds the hope of true and substantive political representation.”
Governor Jeff Landry and legislative leaders had opted to draw SB8 themselves rather than accept a court-imposed map. While designed to comply with the VRA, critics say it was also tailored to protect incumbents—including U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson—and stitch together disparate Black communities across the state.
Alanah Odoms of the ACLU of Louisiana stated plainly, “Make no mistake: Black Louisianans are entitled to the same fair and representative maps as voters anywhere in this country.”
The Supreme Court’s decision to revisit the case could have wide-reaching consequences, not just for Louisiana, but for future redistricting nationwide. “This case is critically important not just for our clients, but for every Black voter in Louisiana and across this country who believes in the promise of equal representation,” said Tracie Washington of the Louisiana Justice Institute.
If the Court ultimately strikes down SB8, it could signal a dramatic narrowing of when states may consider race in redistricting—even to remedy past discrimination. If upheld, it could reaffirm Section 2’s force and allow courts to continue mandating majority-minority districts under specific conditions.
As the nation awaits a final ruling, Louisiana’s Black voters prepare to fight once more to protect the gains they’ve made. As NAACP Louisiana State Conference President Michael McClanahan put it: “We won’t stop until victory is won.”
