Louisiana v. Callais

Summary

Justice Alito, joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, 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 vote-dilution liability to require circumstances supporting 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 present-day discrimination. Because the underlying plaintiffs failed those requirements, SB8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander; the Court 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 majority replaced Congress’s effects-based standard with an effectively insurmountable intent requirement, disregarded statutory stare decisis and Allen v. Milligan, and undermined minority electoral representation.