A notable divide among justices was on display Monday at the United States Supreme Court. They vigorously argued against what would be an unprecedented congressional map strike down by SCOTUS. The state’s controversial decision to establish a new district has drawn criticism. This long, sprawled out, majority-Black district stretches an impressive 250 miles, from Shreveport in the northwestern corner of the state to Baton Rouge, Louisiana’s capital, in the center of the state. A coalition of non-African American voters has intervened to defend this map. They claim that it unlawfully racially gerrymanders voters.
The heart of the debate lies in the balance between race considerations in political districting and compliance with established legal frameworks. Until now, the Supreme Court has granted significant leeway to mapmakers in taking race into account while redistricting. To be allowed, it must meet a compelling interest and be narrowly tailored to serve that interest. Justices seem divided on whether Louisiana’s map runs afoul of these principles.
The court’s liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—signaled their sympathy for the position of Louisiana legislators. They suggested that these legislators shortchanged their constituents and NCGA and the U.S. The six conservative justices were openly doubtful that the motivations behind the district’s design were benign.
The liberals were not the only justices skeptical of the winning argument — which had argued that the district had been drawn to protect Republican seats. In response to one of the district’s contours, Chief Justice John Roberts asked, “Are you sure that the design is race-based?”
"Do you think the drawing of this district was not predominantly based on race," – Chief Justice John Roberts
Even Justice Brett Kavanaugh was concerned about the future of section 2 of the Voting Rights Act lasting forever. This provision is significant because it specifically prohibits voting practices that discriminate against people of color.
"the authority to conduct race-based redistricting cannot extend indefinitely into the future" – Justice Brett Kavanaugh
The legal challenge came from a coalition of Black voters, who comprise nearly a third of Louisiana’s population. Their position was that lawmakers were required to draw at least a second majority-Black congressional district. This requirement comes from section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. A federal judge agreed with them. This ruling prevented the state from using its previously enacted map and ordered the drawing of a 2nd majority-Black district. As a result, this artificially drawn district is now represented by Democrat Cleo Fields.
The decision means the Supreme Court has allowed Louisiana to implement the new map for upcoming elections. This move occurred in the face of a lower court overturning it in 2024 and time-consuming legal battles still underway.
One of the lawyers on the case, Stuart Naifeh, explained that at heart, the case was about the political motivations for selecting the map.
"Politics is the only reason the state chose the map that it did." – Stuart Naifeh
Naifeh drove home the distinction, emphasizing the need to keep states’ flexibility to reintroduce political judgment, once again so long as it complies with the law.
"That distinction is important to preserving states' flexibility to account for these kinds of political considerations while also complying with the law," – Stuart Naifeh
J Benjamin Aguiñaga pointed out the challenge of adhering to previous court rulings while acknowledging potential errors in those decisions.
"I'm not going to stand here and say that the Robinson court was right, but what is set in stone is what they said." – J Benjamin Aguiñaga
The conversation focused on what lies ahead with ongoing redistricting challenges. As Sara Rohani cautioned us, we don’t want to see years of new litigation start up under remedial actions, should they be taken, under the Voting Rights Act.
"It would basically lead to just endless collateral attacks on maps that were drawn to remedy Voting Rights Act violations and even potentially existing districts that are compliant with section 2" – Sara Rohani
In a striking dissent Chief Justice Roberts described the district’s geographical scope, calling attention to the “waistband-sized” swath it cut across the state of Louisiana.
"It runs from one side of the state to the other, picking up Black populations as it goes along." – Chief Justice John Roberts
How the Supreme Court rules on this case will have huge and lasting consequences. It will set the stage for redistricting efforts around the country, including in key battleground states. That leaves the court with an important question. It needs to provide equal representation for all minority populations, all the while adhering to constitutional constraints on race-based decision making.