Supreme Court Set to Hear Case on Race in Congressional Districts
The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on Wednesday regarding a case that has the potential to end the practice of using race in drawing congressional districts.
At the heart of this long-standing legal dispute is Louisiana’s congressional map, which illustrates the conflicting demands of voting rights under Article II and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Article II addresses practices that can deny or diminish people’s votes based on race.
In a court filing, Louisiana’s stance is that “race-based redistricting under Article II is fundamentally unconstitutional.” They argue it relies on racial stereotypes, implying that all voters of a certain race think and act alike. “That assumption contradicts this court’s established precedents,” they claimed.
Previously, the case in Louisiana had advanced through the court system. Last year, a judge postponed a ruling and rescheduled the case for oral arguments. In August, the court sought briefs regarding whether the intentional formation of majority-minority districts is at odds with the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution.
Lawsuits regarding the state’s map started in 2022 when a group of Black voters raised concerns about the existence of only one majority-Black district. Following a court order, the legislature passed a new map in January 2024, creating a second majority-Black district.
Immediately after that, a group of non-Black voters filed a lawsuit, claiming that the 2024 map represented an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge panel sided with them, determining that race was a central factor in the new map’s creation.
Republican State Senator Glenn Womack, who authored the updated map, argued that political considerations—not race—guided the map’s design. His aim was to support key Louisiana political figures.
The state noted that the extensive resources devoted to the debate over racial equality in voter representation are immense, questioning the purpose of such scrutiny, suggesting it could lead to a repetitive cycle after the next census.
Louisiana contended that a race-based approach to voting would harm citizens and the state, pushing courts to make decisions based on race and turning electoral maps into mere proposals awaiting judicial approval. Ultimately, this approach undermines the nation’s foundational values.
“Our commitment to equal justice is a cornerstone of our democracy,” the state emphasized, “but this commitment is undermined when our government endorses racial discrimination against its citizens.”
The Justice Department backed Louisiana, asserting that race-based redistricting stems from a misinterpretation of claims regarding vote dilution established in the Supreme Court’s 1986 decision in Thornburgh v. Jingles. They noted specific criteria that minorities must meet to establish a vote dilution claim, warning against an unconstitutional use of affirmative action based on race.
Louisiana’s Secretary of State urged the court for a swift ruling, hoping for a decision by December or early January, as the primary election is slated for April 18, 2026.
Justice Clarence Thomas expressed concern over the court’s decision to revisit the Louisiana case, suggesting the need for a prompt resolution.
He contended that the cases present a choice: to uphold Article II while allowing racial gerrymandering or to find sufficient violations to preclude race-based interventions.
The Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan indicated that Alabama’s congressional map likely breached the Voting Rights Act, highlighting an evolving debate on the longevity of race-based redistricting.
Chief Justice Roberts, while opposing race-focused practices, also supported the majority in the Milligan case, referring to the divisive nature of race-based redistricting.
