Louisiana v. Callais | Case No. 24-109 | Oral Argument Date: 10/15/25 | Docket Link: Here

Question Presented: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.

Other Referenced Episodes:

• August 19th – Road Work Ahead: How Four 2024 Cases May Be Reshaping First Amendment Scrutiny | Here

Overview

This episode examines Louisiana v. Callais, a potentially transformative voting rights case that could reshape Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and minority representation nationwide. After ordering reargument and supplemental briefing, the Supreme Court confronts whether race-conscious redistricting to create majority-minority districts violates the very constitutional amendments the VRA was designed to enforce, creating a fundamental paradox at the intersection of civil rights law and equal protection doctrine.

Episode Roadmap

Opening: A Constitutional Paradox

• Supreme Court's unusual reargument order and supplemental question

• From routine redistricting challenge to existential VRA question

• Constitutional paradox: using civil rights laws to potentially strike down civil rights protections

Constitutional Framework: The Reconstruction Amendments

• Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendment enforcement clauses

• Congressional power versus Equal Protection constraints

• Strict scrutiny as constitutional roadblock for race-conscious government action

Background: From Robinson to Callais

• 2022 Robinson v. Ardoin litigation establishing Section 2 violation

• Complex procedural ping-pong through federal courts

• Louisiana's creation of SB8-6 with second majority-Black district

• March 2025 oral argument leading to reargument order

Section 2 Framework: The Gingles Test

• Effects test versus intent requirement

• Three-part analysis for Section 2 violations

• Majority-minority districts as remedial tool

Legal Arguments: Competing Constitutional Visions

Appellants' Defense (Louisiana & Robinson Intervenors):

• Congressional authority under Reconstruction Amendments

• Section 2 compliance as compelling governmental interest

• Narrow tailoring through built-in Gingles limitations

Appellees' Challenge (Callais):

• Section 2 fails congruence and proportionality review

• Students for Fair Admissions requires specific discrimination evidence

• "Good reasons" test provides insufficient constitutional protection

Oral Argument Preview: Key Questions for Reargument

• Temporal scope of congressional enforcement power

• SFFA's impact on voting rights doctrine

• Practical consequences for existing majority-minority districts

• Federalism tensions in electoral oversight

Episode Highlights

Constitutional Tension: The same Reconstruction Amendments used to justify the VRA in 1965 now being invoked to potentially strike it down in 2025

Procedural Drama: Court's unusual reargument order signals fundamental doctrinal questions about VRA's constitutional foundations

Practical Stakes: Could eliminate dozens of majority-minority congressional districts and significantly reduce minority representation

Historical Evolution: From 1982 Section 2 effects test designed to combat discrimination to 2025 argument that it perpetuates discrimination

SFFA Integration: How 2023 affirmative action ruling's anti-classification principle applies to political representation

Evidence Battle: Whether current Louisiana record contains sufficient proof of ongoing intentional discrimination to justify race-conscious remedies

Referenced Cases

Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard | 600 U.S. 181 (2023)

• Question Presented: Whether universities may use race as a factor in student admissions decisions
• Arguments: Established anti-classification principle requiring specific evidence of discrimination before race-conscious government action; appellees argue this standard should apply to voting rights and eliminate Section 2's effects test

Miller v. Johnson | 515 U.S. 900 (1995)

• Question Presented: Whether Georgia's congressional redistricting plan violated Equal Protection by using race as predominant factor
• Arguments: Warned that VRA's command for race-based districting "brings the Act into tension with the Fourteenth Amendment"; central to appellees' argument that this tension has only worsened over decades

Shaw v. Hunt | 517 U.S. 899 (1996)

• Question Presented: Whether North Carolina's race-conscious redistricting plan satisfied strict scrutiny
• Arguments: Established "good reasons" test allowing states to consider race if they have strong basis in evidence for believing VRA compliance required; appellees attack this as insufficient constitutional protection

City of Boerne v. Flores | 521 U.S. 507 (1997) | Docket Link: Here

• Question Presented: Whether Religious Freedom Restoration Act exceeded Congress's enforcement powers under Fourteenth Amendment
• Arguments: Established congruence and proportionality test requiring congressional remedies be proportional to constitutional violations; appellees argue Section 2 fails this test due to lack of current discrimination findings

Thornburg v. Gingles | 478 U.S. 30 (1986)

• Question Presented: What standards govern Section 2 vote dilution claims
• Arguments: Created three-part test for Section 2 violations requiring minority political cohesion, majority bloc voting, and geographic compactness; appellants argue these requirements provide adequate constitutional constraints

Allen v. Milligan | 599 U.S. 1 (2023) | Docket Link: Here

• Question Presented: Whether Alabama's congressional map violated Section 2 by diluting Black voting strength
• Arguments: Reaffirmed Section 2's continued vitality but left constitutional questions unresolved; Alabama's immediate non-compliance cited by appellants as evidence ongoing discrimination requires continued VRA protection

Shelby County v. Holder | 570 U.S. 529 (2013)

• Question Presented: Whether Section 4's coverage formula for Section 5 preclearance violates Equal Protection
• Arguments: Struck down VRA preclearance based on outdated congressional findings; appellees argue similar logic should apply to Section 2's effects test lacking current discrimination evidence

Welcome back to SCOTUS Oral Arguments and Opinions.

Today we're tackling one of the most consequential voting rights cases in decades, Louisiana versus Calais.

This case could fundamentally reshape how we think about race conscious redistricting and the constitutional limits of the Voting Rights Act.

The Court slated oral arguments in this case for October 15th.

Before we get started, let's discuss one piece of housekeeping.

As previously mentioned, the Supreme Court kicks off oral arguments this Monday, October 6th, with Burke versus Choi and Villarreal versus Texas.

On Tuesday, October 7th, the court hears arguments in Chiles versus Salazar and Barrett versus United States.

And on Wednesday, October 8th, the court hears Postal Services v. Conan and Bost v. Illinois State Board of Elections.

Check out our episode previews on those cases to get up to speed.

We'll host the oral arguments after they air, so follow us, rate and share so that we can enjoy this term together.

Okay, with that piece of housekeeping out of the way, let's tackle Louisiana vs. Calais.

In this case, what started as a routine challenge to Louisiana's congressional map morphed into an existential question of about Section 2 of the Voting Rights act itself.

The Supreme Court is asking whether creating majority minority districts violates the 14th and 15th amendments, the very amendments the VRA was designed to enforce.

Think of it this Congress says it's protecting civil rights, but critics argue it's actually creating the very discrimination it's supposed to prevent.

It's a constitutional paradox with massive implications.

And this case sits right at the intersection of the Court's recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions, the affirmative action case, and decades of voting rights precedent.

If the Court rules broadly, minority representation in Congress could drop significantly.

So buckle up.

We're about to explore how a Louisiana redistricting dispute became a potential constitutional earthquake that could reshape American democracy itself.

Let me read the supplemental question the court ordered briefing on whether the state's intentional creation of a second majority minority congressional district violates the 14th or 15th Amendments to the U.S. constitution.

Now for our listeners, a majority minority district is a congressional district where racial minorities, in this case black voters, make up more than 50% of the population.

These districts are often created by drawing specific geographic boundaries to group together minority communities that might otherwise be spread across different districts.

And that word intentional is crucial.

The Court isn't asking about accidental demographics where minorities just happen to be concentrated.

They're asking about deliberate government action to create racial majorities by redrawing district lines.

Exactly.

And when the government intentionally sorts people by race, even for supposedly good reasons, that triggers what lawyers call strict scrutiny.

We explain it using a road system analogy that makes these concepts really clear.

In short, strict scrutiny is like a constitutional roadblock.

The government faces an almost impossible task of proving they have a compelling reason, and they're using the absolute least restrictive means possible.

Most laws don't survive this level of review.

Now let's look at the key constitutional text.

The 14th Amendment, Section 5 states the the Congress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.

The 15th Amendment, Section 2 is nearly identical.

The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

Those enforcement clauses are crucial because Congress used them to justify the Voting Rights Act.

But here's the constitutional paradox.

While Congress says it's enforcing these amendments to protect voting rights, the challengers argue that the VRA actually violates the equal protection principles embedded in those same amendments.

It's the legal equivalent of using a medicine that might cure the disease but also poison the patient.

Can the same constitutional text that authorizes civil rights protection also prohibit the methods Congress chose to provide that protection?

As discussed in other episodes, this case presents a convoluted procedural history.

Let me walk you through it step by step, because it shows how voting rights litigation actually works in practice.

It starts with a different case, Robinson vs. Ardouan.

Now, Section two is the key provision here.

Unlike other civil rights laws that require proof of intention discrimination, Section two uses what's called an effects test.

You don't need to prove that lawmakers were racist.

You just need to show that the electoral system creates a discriminatory result that denies minority voters equal opportunity.

It requires three things.

First, the minority group must be large and geographically concentrated enough to form a majority in a district.

Second, the minority group must be politically cohesive, meaning they tend to support the same candidates.

Third, the white majority must vote as a bloc to usually defeat minority preferred candidates.

The court found racially polarized Voting, meaning black and white voters consistently supported different candidates and concluded that Louisiana's map denied black voters a fair opportunity to elect their preferred representatives.

Here's where the legal drama begins.

The court ordered Louisiana to redraw its congressional map with a second majority black district within just five legislative days.

Think about that.

Completely redrawing congressional boundaries in less than a week.

Then came what I can only describe as procedural ping pong.

The fifth Circuit Court of Appeals initially stayed that order, then vacated the day the Supreme Court stepped in and state everything pending their decision in Allen vs. Milligan.

After Milligan, where the court upheld Alabama's Section 2 obligation to create a second majority Black district, the Supreme Court essentially said never mind about their stay in Louisiana, vacated it and sent everything back to the 5th Circuit.

Meanwhile, Louisiana is caught in this legal whirlwind, not knowing which map to use for actual elections.

They created what's called SB8.6, a new congressional map that intentionally creates a second majority black district.

But here's the constitutional crisis.

While Louisiana says we're just complying with federal law, the challengers argue that this compliance itself violates the Constitution.

But the supplemental question we're discussing didn't emerge until this term.

That's Supreme Court speak for this case just got a lot more complicated.

When the court orders supplemental briefing, it usually means they've identified a fundamental constitutional issue that could reshape entire areas of law and requiring reargument.

That suggests the Justices are grappling with potentially explosive constitutional questions.

Let's break down the competing constitutional visions here, starting with Louisiana and the Robinson interveners who are defending race conscious redistricting.

Their first argument is that Congress acted within its core constitutional authority when it enacted section 2.

They emphasized that the 15th amendment is the only place in the Constitution that explicitly mentions race, and it does so specifically to empower Congress to combat racial discrimination in voting.

Their point is that Congress holds full remedial powers to address such Discrimination.

And that power doesn't disappear just because we're decades removed from the original Voting Rights Act.

What's particularly interesting is how they frame ongoing necessity.

They point to recent examples and like how Alabama tried to circumvent the Supreme Court's Milligan decision by drawing a new map that perpetuated the exact same section 2 violation the court had just struck down.

Their argument is essentially look, discrimination is still happening, just in more subtle forms.

Their second major argument focuses on strict scrutiny analysis.

Remember, that's the nearly impossible constitutional standard we discussed earlier this they contend that complying with Section 2 constitutes what lawyers call a compelling governmental interest.

They cite the Court's assumption in Shaw vs Hunt that compliance with Section 2 could be a compelling interest.

Their logic is straightforward.

If Congress validly enacted this law under its constitutional enforcement powers, then following that law must itself be constitutional.

You can't be damned if you do and and damned if you don't.

Their third argument addresses what's called narrow tailoring, the idea that even if the government proves a compelling reason for racial classification, it must use the least restrictive means possible.

They emphasize that Section 2 retains built in limitations through the Gingels test we discussed earlier.

They argue it's not a blank check for racial gerrymandering.

You can't just draw majority minority districts anywhere you want.

You need evidence of politically cohesive minority communities, racially polarized voting, and actual denial of electoral opportunity.

Now let's flip to the challengers, the Calais Apellees, who present a fundamentally different constitutional worldview.

Their first major argument is that Section two fails what's called congruence and proportionality review.

Basically, it says that when Congress exercises its enforcement powers or under the Reconstruction Amendments, the remedy must be proportional to the actual constitutional violations Congress is trying to prevent.

Think of it as constitutional proportionality.

The punishment must fit the crime.

The challengers argue that Congress never made contemporary findings about ongoing racial discrimination in districting that would justify Section 2's extraordinary remedy.

Their point is that these constitutional tensions have only gotten worse over 40 more years.

They argue that SFFA fundamentally changed the constitutional landscape for any race conscious government action.

That's a really aggressive reading of sffa.

They're essentially arguing that the anti classification principle from sffa, the idea that the Constitution is generally colorblind, should apply to voting rights, even though SFFA was about university admissions.

They contend that the government can't sort citizens by race without evidence of specific current intentional discrimination.

What's striking about their argument is the claim that the record in this case was devoid of evidence of specific current intentional discrimination.

They argue that Section 2's effects test, which doesn't require proof of racist intent, is no longer constitutionally sufficient after sffa.

Their third argument attacks what's called the good reasons test from the Shaw line of cases.

Under current law, states can use race in redistricting if they have good good reasons to believe Section 2 requires it, even without ironclad proof of a violation.

The challengers argue this provides insufficient constitutional protection because states don't even need to prove an actual Section 2 violation, just that they had reasonable grounds to think one existed.

They contrast this with Shaw's original requirement that states have a strong basis in evidence before engaging in race conscious districting.

Perhaps most dramatically, they argue that Section 2 became discrimination's main source and aggravator rather than a remedy for discrimination.

They claim the VRA outlived its constitutional justification and now perpetuates the very racial classifications it was designed to eliminate.

That means we're likely to see a much more focused discussion on whether Section 2 itself can survive constitutional scrutiny.

I'm particularly interested in how the conservative justices approach this tension.

We know from previous cases that several are deeply skeptical of race conscious government action, but the Voting Rights act traditionally additionally enjoyed broader ideological support as necessary.

Civil Rights protection Watch for questions about what lawyers call the temporal scope of congressional power.

Or does changing social context require updated constitutional justification?

They'll probably argue that racial polarization in voting persists and requires continued federal oversight.

I'M also watching for how the Court handles the interaction between SFFA and voting rights.

SFFA involved educational diversity and individual student admissions.

But does its anti classification principle extend to political representation and electoral districts?

That interaction could determine whether Section 2 survives at all.

And there's a massive practical question lurking here.

What happens to existing majority minority districts if the Court sides with the challengers?

There are currently dozens of such congressional districts nationwide, many Created under Section 2 requirements.

Are we looking at a complete restructuring of American political representation from a federalism perspective?

That's the balance between federal and state power.

This case also tests how much federal oversight of state election processes the Constitution permits.

The conservative justices have shown increasing concern about what they see as federal micromanagement of traditional state functions like redistricting.

Louisiana vs Calais represents a potential constitutional inflection point that could reshape American democracy.

If the Court sides with the challengers and strikes down Section 2's effects test, it would eliminate the primary tool for combating voting discrimination and could trigger a wave of redistricting challenges nationwide.

The implications extend far beyond Louisiana's Congressional map.

A broad ruling could effectively gut the Voting Rights Act's most important remaining provision and eliminate most majority minority districts across the country.

We're talking about potentially reducing black and Latino representation in Congress significantly.

But even if the Court rules more narrowly, this case signals the ongoing tension between what scholars call anti discrimination principles and anti classification principles in constitutional law.

The Court seems increasingly skeptical of race conscious government action, even when designed to remedy proven discrimination.

What's remarkable is how this case illustrates the evolution of constitutional interpretation over 60 years.

That's the challenge of applying 19th century constitutional text to 21st century problems.

The Court's decision will force a fundamental reckoning with how much race consciousness our Constitution permits in the pursuit of racial equality in political representation.

It's a question that goes to the heart of what equal protection means in a diverse democracy.

We'll be watching closely as this landmark case develops.

Thanks for joining us for this deep dive into Louisiana versus Calais.

It's a perfect example of how constitutional law grapples with the complex relationship between equality, representation and and federalism in our democratic system.

As always, if you found this helpful, please rate and share the podcast.

And if you're a voting rights attorney, redistricting expert, or constitutional scholar, we'd love to hear your thoughts on how this case might reshape American electoral law.

Thanks for listening to SCOTUS oral arguments and opinions.

We'll be back with more analysis as this potentially transformative case develops.

If you enjoy this content, please follow, rate and subscribe.

Talk to you soon.