Louisiana v. Callais

Summary

Justice Alito, writing for six Justices, held that compliance with §2 of the Voting Rights Act, properly construed, can supply a compelling interest for race-based districting, but did not justify Louisiana’s SB8 map. The Court construed §2 to impose vote-dilution liability only when circumstances support a strong inference of intentional racial discrimination and revised the Gingles framework to require race-neutral illustrative maps satisfying the State’s legitimate political objectives, voting analyses controlling for party affiliation, and greater emphasis on evidence of present-day discrimination. Applying those requirements, it held SB8 unconstitutional and affirmed and remanded. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, concurred in full but would additionally hold that §2 does not regulate districting at all. Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented, arguing that the Court displaced Congress’s effects-based standard, disregarded statutory precedent, and effectively insulated racial vote dilution whenever a State offers a race-neutral justification.