Previous 22 / 92 Next

Cite as: 608 U. S. ____ (2026) 17 Opinion of the Court Louisiana and the Robinson intervenors appealed the decision directly to this Court, and the Court noted probable jurisdiction. 604 U. S. 1007 (2024). See 28 U. S. C. §1253. After an initial round of briefing and argument last Term, the Court restored these cases to the calendar for reargument this Term. See 606 U. S. 923 (2025). We ordered supplemental briefing on the following 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.” 606 U. S. 993 (2025). And because the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district had been prompted by an order suggesting that such a district is required by the Voting Rights Act, our question necessarily implicated the correctness of our longstanding assumption that compliance with the Voting Rights Act may justify what the Constitution generally condemns: the use of race as a basis for government action. This question was pending in several lower-court cases, but in light of the potential impact of those cases on upcoming elections, we concluded that resolution of the question in this suit was appropriate. III A In considering whether the Constitution permits the intentional use of race to comply with the Voting Rights Act, we start with the general rule that the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race. Such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, and our precedents have identified “only two compelling interests” that can satisfy that standard. SFFA, 600 U. S., at 207. One compelling interest, not relevant here, is “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons, such as a race riot.” Ibid.; see Johnson v. California, 543 U. S. 499, 512–513 (2005). The only other compelling interest we have found is “remediating specific,

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