Previous 26 / 92 Next

Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026) 21 Opinion of the Court this comparator group, we may think of a randomly selected member of the electorate who has particular voting preferences, or we may think of a randomly selected group of voters who share certain voting preferences. These voting preferences may be based on a candidate’s party affiliation, ideology, stance on a particular policy issue, personal charisma, or some other characteristic or set of characteristics. But whatever they are, the situation of these randomly selected voters must be compared with that of minority voters alleged to have suffered vote dilution. This brings us to the final term: “to elect.” As used in §2(b), this term must refer to the achievement of electoral victory by casting a ballot. Putting all these terms together, the baseline is the chance enjoyed by nonminority voters to secure the election of their preferred candidates. What, then, is the chance that any given nonminority voter or group of nonminority voters has to secure the election of a preferred candidate? The answer to this question depends on the voting preferences of other voters in the district. For example, in a district where most voters prefer Democratic candidates, a Republican voter in that district will have a low chance of securing the election of his or her preferred candidate. But that chance would be substantially higher if the district were instead filled with voters who prefer Republican candidates. The roster of voters who end up in a given district depends, in turn, on the districting criteria used by the State in drawing a legislative map. If a districting map is produced by computer, as is generally the case today, we may think of all the parameters in the algorithm that the mapmaker uses. One necessary parameter would be the number of districts required by law, and another would have to be a range of inter-district population variations that is small enough to comply with the one-person, one-vote requirement. The algorithm might then go on to lay out and assign priorities to whatever

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Louisiana v. Callais

Judgment

Question Presented: Whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts.

Alleged Acts: After the 2020 U.S. Census, Louisiana undertook congressional redistricting. Following the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Milligan, a federal court found that Louisiana's existing congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) by denying Black voters—who make up roughly one-third of the state's population—an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Under court order, the Louisiana legislature enacted a remedial map (known as SB8) that created a second majority-minority (majority-Black) district out of the state's six total districts, using 2020 census demographics. This new map was then challenged as a racial gerrymander and a violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.

Procedural history: Federal district court upheld the new map institutionalizing the majority-minority district as constitutional, which Louisiana subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court.

Summary: Louisiana v. Callais is a landmark redistricting decision in which the Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana's court-ordered remedial congressional map—which created a second majority-Black district—was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The Court held that because Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the creation of that additional majority-minority district, the state lacked a compelling interest to use race-based districting. The decision has been widely viewed as weakening the protections of the Voting Rights Act against racial vote dilution and establishing a new framework for evaluating racial gerrymandering claims.

Conclusion: In a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed the lower court and held that Louisiana's SB8 map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito explained that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. Because no such requirement existed under the VRA, there was no compelling government interest to justify the State's use of race in drawing SB8. Therefore, the map violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Legal Issue(s)

Electoral Maps and Districting
Voters' Rights

Applicable Law(s): Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Fourteenth Amendment, and Fifteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution

Region: Americas

Country: United States of America

Language of Decision

English

Court: Supreme Court

Election Type: General

Date of decision: Apr 29, 2026

Geolocation

Latitude: 38.8878

Longitude: -77.0026

: Geolocation

Link: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_new_jifl.pdf

Primary Documents

Louisiana v. Callais.pdf
English
Download View

Election Judgments - IFES

Select target paragraph3

Louisiana v. Callais

Primary Documents

Notifications