Louisiana v. Callais is a seminal redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court that focuses on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map. The court will determine if Louisiana lawmakers properly balanced constitutional and Voting Rights Act (VRA) protections when enacting a new congressional map, SB 8, with two majority-Black districts in 2024, following years of litigation under Section 2 of the VRA in Robinson v. Landry.
LDF argued Louisiana v. Callais before the Supreme Court in March 2025. On June 27, 2025 the Supreme Court issued an order to reargue the case during the fall term. Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 15, 2025.
The scheduling of reargument signals the significance this case holds for the future of fair representation and voting rights. Louisiana v. Callais has always been about equal representation, but the outcome in this case will reverberate through redistricting law nationwide and will determine the future of the Voting Rights Act, with key protections hanging in the balance. The implications of the case have the potential to go beyond redistricting and could affect civil rights doctrine nationwide.
This case is about more than just maps — it is about the future of a multi-racial democracy and the commitment to ensure that every vote counts and every voice is heard in the political process.
In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court will consider whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black district that was required by the Voting Rights Act is still a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Court will be poised to address long-held precedent about how lawmakers must balance constitutional and VRA protections when enacting maps, and it will be poised to determine the ongoing scope of the VRA in Louisiana and nationwide.
At the Supreme Court, LDF argued that the map should remain because it satisfies both the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. LDF made the case that the 2024 map fairly recognizes the political power of Black Louisianians, who make up one third of the state’s population and face continued patterns of discrimination in voting and civic life, while balancing other redistricting priorities — in stark contrast to the discriminatory map passed by the state legislature in 2022, which federal courts determined likely violated the VRA by including only one district where Black voters had an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
In Robinson v. Landry, the Middle District of Louisiana and Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals further affirmed that the Louisiana Legislature likely violated the VRA when passing a map in 2022 that provided Black voters an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in only one district. As a result, in 2024, Louisiana had to redraw its congressional map to include two districts where Black voters had an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice in order to comply with Section 2 of the VRA.
In January 2024, a group of non-Black voters challenged the 2024 map as a racial gerrymander in violation of the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution in Callais v. Landry. The voters claimed, despite contrary facts, that “race was the sole reason” for the district lines. The lawsuit aimed to once again undermine the political power of Black Louisianians. The same Black voters who filed Robinson v. Landry stepped in as intervening defendants in Callais to defend the 2024 map with two majority-Black districts and ensure that the rights of Black voters are protected. Their continued fight is about fairness, opportunity, and representation.
When a divided panel of three district court judges found the map unconstitutional and overturned it, the Robinson litigants and State defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which paused the lower court’s ruling and allowed for the 2024 map to remain in place for the 2024 election cycle. The Supreme Court later agreed to hear the case, consolidated under Louisiana v. Callais. After oral arguments in March 2025, the court opted to schedule the case for reargument rather than issue a decision by the end of the spring term.
In its reargument order, the Supreme Court narrowed its focus to the constitutionality of Section 2 of the VRA. In the Aug. 1 order, the Court asked parties to submit supplemental briefs that address the question “Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution.” Section 2 of the VRA prohibits state and local governments from using any voting procedure that “results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen…to vote on account of race or color.” Section 2 is essential for challenging racial discrimination in voting.
Since its passage, the VRA has been a critical tool to push back against formidable forms of racial voter suppression — including literacy tests, poll taxes, and racially dilutive electoral maps. The protections of the VRA and Constitution were designed to prevent discrimination and ensure that Black voters are not shut out of the political process. Section 2 safeguards our democracy.
The law and the facts call for fair maps. As recently as 2023, in Allen v. Milligan, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld decades of precedent under Section 2 of the VRA and recognized that attacks on the voting rights of Black voters continue today. That case led to a second majority-Black district in Alabama and signaled that the same should apply in Louisiana.
From their communities, to state legislative chambers, and all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Black Louisianians have united to demand legislative districts that reflect their unique interests. For too long, their opportunities have been shaped by Louisiana’s repeated history of discrimination. Their march to a fair congressional map has been long and winding.
The 2020 census revealed that Louisiana’s Black population increased to one third of the state’s population. In 2021 and 2022, community members and civil rights attorneys mobilized across the state to call for fair and representative maps at public hearings hosted by state lawmakers. Specifically, they urged lawmakers to pass maps that complied with the protections of the U.S. Constitution and Section 2 of the VRA They noted that current patterns of discrimination in Louisiana required the state to enact a new congressional map with two districts designed to ensure Black voters would have an equal opportunity to elect their candidate of choice.
However, when tasked with passing a new map for the state’s six congressional districts in 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed a map, HB 1, that had only one majority-Black district and failed to provide fair representation to Black voters. Shortly after, individual Black voters — including Dr. Press Robinson, Edgar Cage, Dr. Dorothy Nairne, Bishop Edwin René Soulé, Dr. Alice Washington, Reverand Clee Earnest Lowe, Commissioner Davante Lewis, Martha Davis, and Ambrose Sims — along with organizational plaintiffs Power Coalition for Equity and Justice and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference, filed a lawsuit, Robinson v. Landry (then Robinson v. Ardoin), challenging the map as a violation of Section 2. The Robinson Plaintiffs argued that Louisiana’s map violated Section 2 by weakening Black Louisianians’ voting power.
After years of litigation, federal courts gave the Louisiana Legislature until the end of January 2024 to pass a map that complied with the VRA. During a special legislative session ending on Jan. 19, 2024, the Legislature passed a map that included a second majority-Black district, SB 8. However, unlike the maps the Robinson plaintiffs endorsed in the courts and at the state capitol, SB 4, which placed the new district along the Mississippi Delta between Baton Rouge and Monroe, SB 8 created a new majority-Black district by connecting communities in Baton Rouge and Shreveport, following the Red River and I-49. Legislators cited political priorities for this choice — namely, preserving the districts of preferred and powerful incumbents, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson.
Shortly after SB 8 became law, a group of “non-African American voters” filed a new lawsuit, Callais v. Landry, challenging the enacted map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Callais Plaintiffs claimed that “race was the sole reason” for the passage of the map. The Robinson Plaintiffs quickly intervened in Callais to defend the rights of Black voters to have a fair and representative map in 2024 — and beyond.
After a three-day trial, a divided panel of three federal court judges overturned the map. The majority held that legislators improperly prioritized race, and that the map was not narrowly designed to comply with the VRA, despite the Robinson federal court rulings. The Robinson Intervenors and State Defendants quickly appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and asked the court to pause the district court’s order until after the 2024 elections.
The Robinson v. Landry litigants pointed to lawmakers’ stated political objectives when passing the map — including protecting incumbents such as Speaker Johnson — as evidence that race alone did not dictate the map’s district lines. When the district court found the map unconstitutional and overturned it, the Robinson litigants and State defendants appealed to the Supreme Court, which paused the lower court’s ruling and allowed for the 2024 map to remain in place for the 2024 election cycle.
On May 15, 2024, the Supreme Court granted an emergency stay, pausing enforcement of the district court’s decision and allowing the 2024 elections to proceed on the districts drawn in SB 8, with two majority-Black districts. On the eve of the federal elections, November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court noted probable jurisdiction in Louisiana v. Callais, affirming that the Court would hear oral arguments on the merits of the case and determine the fate of the map moving forward. Oral argument was held on March 24, 2025.
Months after the oral argument, the court made the rare decision to hold the case to be reargued rather than issue a ruling. This time, the justices asked parties to provide supplemental briefing on the narrower question of whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violated the 14th and 15th Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In weighing this question, the court will be forced to grapple with how decades of settled law applies to Louisiana’s map. The outcome of the case will not only impact Louisiana, but will also serve as a decisive inflection point in our nation’s commitment to protecting voting rights for communities nationwide.
For years, Louisianans have organized, legislated, and litigated for the promise of a fair and representative congressional map. The road has been long, but the fight for fair maps continues. Dive into the details and timeline here.
Redistricting can elevate or silence communities of color in our elections. Now more than ever, it is crucial to learn about the redistricting process and how maps impact political power.
Learn how discriminatory redistricting maps in three states, including Louisiana, pave the way for oppressive legislation.
Understanding the role of race in the redistricting process as a means of ensuring equitable representation and political power is critical.
Filed in 2022, the lawsuit argued that by failing to add a second majority-Black district, the maps dilute Black Louisianans voting power, and deny them an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
We’ve compiled answers to frequently asked questions about the seminal U.S. Supreme Court case Allen v. Milligan and its impact on voting rights and redistricting.
LDF has been fighting for fair maps in key states to ensure that maps are drawn fairly and do not disenfranchise Black voters.
