Supreme Court Arguments on Redistricting

Today, Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson shared some unexpected views during oral arguments. “Trust me on this,” she remarked.

The case at hand, Louisiana vs. Curry, revolves around the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional map, particularly concerning redistricting. A lower court previously mandated the creation of additional majority-black districts to mitigate “vote dilution,” as noted by Justice Clarence Thomas. The plaintiffs argue that the inclusion of a second majority-black district amounts to unconstitutional racial gerrymandering.

Jackson proposed that racially drawn district lines might not be unconstitutional, likening the situation to the Americans with Disabilities Act, suggesting that both scenarios involve issues of access. She stated, “Perhaps what I’m thinking about is the fact that affirmative action without discriminatory intent is not a new idea in civil rights law…”

She elaborated that the ADA was designed because many buildings were inaccessible, regardless of whether the builders had intended to exclude individuals with disabilities. She expressed confusion about why similar principles shouldn’t apply here.

However, this comparison drew contention. For instance, while she pointedly noted that “legless people are different from black people,” the argument over whether requiring racial minorities to control entire districts equates to ensuring public access to buildings is complex. Jackson argued that Section 2 is aimed at addressing historical and ongoing disadvantages faced by minorities in the voting system.

During the hearings, Jackson also had confrontational exchanges with Louisiana’s Attorney General Ben Aguignaga. At one point, she questioned him sharply, disrupting his points about identifying problematic areas—revealing what some might construe as frustration.

Jackson pressed, “So, can I just ask why that’s not a compelling national interest?” As the dialogue continued, she seemed intent on highlighting the importance of recognizing and solving the issues presented by the plaintiffs, who sought an extra majority-black district.

At one moment, she remarked, “I thought they were coming to us and saying, ‘We’re not being given an equal opportunity to vote because our votes are being diluted.’ That’s the same as saying we deserve every second of it,” adding further nuance to her argument.

Despite some apparent discordance during the arguments, Jackson emphasized the need for solutions to the problems identified. She quickly dismissed Aguignaga after his claims about needing intentional discrimination for justification, leaving some observers pondering her responses.