For years, Louisianans have organized, legislated, and litigated for the promise of a fair and representative congressional map. On Mar. 24, 2025, LDF returned to the Supreme Court to defend and protect the rights of Black Louisiana voters.
At the Supreme Court, LDF argued that a congressional map that was in place during the 2024 election cycle should remain because it satisfies both the Voting Rights Act (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, 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 majority-Black district.
On June 27, the Supreme Court issued an order to re-argue the case during the fall term. Oral argument is scheduled for Oct. 15. The current map that includes 2 majority-Black districts will remain in place.
Louisiana v. Callais is a redistricting case before the U.S. Supreme Court that will determine the future of Louisiana’s congressional map. The outcome of the case will not only impact Louisiana but will also forecast the resilience of our democratic values and shape the future of redistricting cases nationwide. LDF’s Redistricting Manager Stuart Naifeh presented oral argument before the Supreme Court on March 24.
At its core, Louisiana v. Callais is about equal representation for Black voters in Louisiana and the role of race in redistricting. The Court will determine if Louisiana lawmakers properly balanced constitutional and VRA protections when enacting a new congressional map with two majority-Black districts in 2024, following years of litigation under Section 2 of the VRA.
The Court will be poised to address long-held precedent about how lawmakers must balance constitutional and VRA protections when enacting maps — as well as the extent of their discretion to also consider politics or other legislative preferences when drawing districts.
LDF argued that a congressional map that was in place during the 2024 election cycle 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, 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 majority-Black district.
The outcome of Louisiana v. Callais will determine the next steps for Louisiana’s congressional map and the application of federal laws to redistricting processes nationwide.
Specifically, the Supreme Court will determine if Louisiana lawmakers properly balanced constitutional and Voting Rights Act protections when enacting a congressional map with two majority-Black districts in 2024. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution says that lawmakers cannot consider race predominantly over other factors when redistricting without a compelling reason. Meanwhile, Section 2 of the VRA requires that lawmakers consider race enough to ensure Black voters have fair representation. In Callais, the Court will address long-held precedent that addresses how lawmakers can strike a balance in weighing these protections while redistricting.
In 2022, the Louisiana Legislature passed a map, HB 1, with only one majority-Black district despite compelling evidence and community testimony that two of the state’s six districts should have majority-Black voting populations to ensure Black voters have an equal opportunity to elect their candidates of choice.
Right after the map was passed, LDF filed a lawsuit on behalf of individual Black voters, along with Power Coalition for Equity and Justice and the NAACP Louisiana State Conference. Robinson v. Landry (formerly Robinson v. Ardoin) challenged the map as a violation of Section 2 of the VRA. The Robinson Plaintiffs argued that Louisiana’s map violated Section 2 by weakening Black Louisianians’ voting power.
After years of litigation during which the multiple federal courts found that the map likely violated the VRA, the courts gave the Louisiana Legislature until the end of Jan. 2024 to pass a map that complied with the VRA and included two majority-Black districts where Black voters had an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. In January 2024, the Legislature passed a map that included a second majority-Black district, SB 8.
Unlike maps proposed by the Robinson plaintiffs, SB 8 created a new majority-Black district by connecting communities in Baton Rouge and up along the Red River, from Alexandria to Shreveport along the I-49 corridor. Legislators cited political priorities for this choice, like protecting the incumbency of powerful Louisiana congressmembers including Speaker Mike Johnson.
Shortly after SB 8 became law, a group of “non-African American voters” filed Callais v. Landry, challenging the newly enacted map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. These plaintiffs claimed that “race was the sole reason” for the passage of the map. Again represented by LDF and co-counsel, the Robinson litigants quickly intervened in Callais to defend the rights of Black voters to have a fair and representative map in 2024.
After a three-day trial, a divided panel of three federal court judges overturned SB 8. The majority sided with the “non-African American voters” and held that legislators improperly prioritized race, and that SB 8 was not tailored to comply with the VRA, despite the previous rulings in Robinson v. Landry requiring the Legislature to pass a map with a second majority-Black district. With the case on appeal, LDF will now represent the Robinson Intervenors as they continue their fight for fair maps at the Supreme Court.
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.
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.
This piece explores how three states with discriminatory maps have shirked their responsibilities to their constituents, paving the way for the passage of oppressive legislation.
Understanding the role of race in the redistricting process as a means of ensuring equitable representation and political power is critical.
LDF has been fighting for fair maps in key states to ensure that maps are drawn fairly and do not disenfranchise Black voters.
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 Report
LDF, MALDEF, and AAJC published a guide to the redistricting process, outlining how communities can get involved and advocate for fair maps.
