SCOTUS oral arguments @9am- Louisiana vs Callais (Voting Rights Act)

I’m worried. Every time Louisiana is in the conversation things can go sideways.

There was another issue added to the case by SCOTUS on August 1, 2025 when they requested supplemental briefs.

quote:

---

Order of August 1, 2025: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION RAISED ON PAGES 36—38 OF THE BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: WHETHER THE STATE’S INTENTIONAL CREATION OF A SECOND MAJORITY-MINORITY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH OR FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION

---

These cases were originally argued in the 2024 term. At the end of June the court decided to hold these cases over for additional argument. Justice Thomas filed a dissent from holding the cases over. In his dissent he goes over the state of the law. Thomas seems to take the position that section 2 of the voting rights act violates the constitution. On August 1, 2025 the additional issue requesting supplemental briefs was added.

Thomas dissent from holding case over.

quote:

---

Thomas seems to take the position that section 2 of the voting rights act violates the constitution.

---

That's the needle's eye Roberts is going to try to thread: how to say race-based gerrymandering does not invalidate Section 2 of the VRA (because this case is solely built on race being used as the determinant and Section 2 being the foundation for that reasoning).

Section 2 prohibits two types of discrimination: "vote denial", in which a person is denied the opportunity to cast a ballot or to have their vote properly counted, and "vote dilution" in which the strength or effectiveness of a person's vote is diminished. Section 2 litigation has usually been concerned with only vote dilution, especially claims that a jurisdiction's redistricting plan or use of at-large/multimember elections prevents minority voters from casting sufficient votes to elect their preferred candidates.

The problem is that this stance eventually mandates the creation of majority-minority districts in order to allow minorities to elect their preferred candidates. If minorities are spread too sparsely throughout the state, it then mandates extreme gerrymandering. What we've seen over the years is that the SCOTUS has been so determined to avoid admitting that Section 2 violates the 14th's Equal Protection Clause that they've actually created leeway for violations.

Alito is right to the point on Robinson that Milligan's standard of (group) compactness was ignored.

quote:

---

Looking good for ending race-based gerrymandering.

---

There are three that are against it: Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. Need two of Barrett, Kavanaugh, and Roberts. So probably Barrett and Kavanaugh.

Great opening in favor of ending racial discrimination.

Listening to Justice Wise Latina, she's doing exactly what the Section 2 proponents have been doing (and the argument the Court has allowed) and that's conflating the right to vote with some sort of "right to win" by minority voters.

quote:

---

Listening to Justice Wise Latina, she's doing exactly what the Section 2 proponents have been doing (and the argument the Court has allowed) and that's conflating the right to vote with some sort of "right to win" by minority voters.

---

Spot on.