Supreme Court’s Louisiana Redistricting Decision Redefines Section 2

On April 24 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling in *Louisiana v. Callais*, invalidated Louisiana’s 2024 congressional map that created a second majority-Black district. The majority held the map violated the Equal Protection Clause because the state could not show a compelling interest for using race. The decision removes Democrat Cleo Fields, elected from that district.

SCOTUSblog

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act bars voting practices that discriminate on the basis of race. Previously, plaintiffs had to show that a reasonably configured minority-opportunity district could be drawn. The Court now requires an alternative map that meets the state’s political objectives and that challengers control for party affiliation when proving racial bloc voting.

NewsweekSCOTUSblogFox News (website)PBS News HourDemocracy DocketNew York Times

Justice Alito wrote that the Constitution “almost never permits” a state to discriminate on the basis of race and that Section 2 does not require a state to create a majority-minority district when the map can be defended on partisan grounds. The opinion treats protecting Republican incumbents as a permissible political objective and updates the Gingles test to require proof that racial voting patterns cannot be explained by partisan affiliation.

SCOTUSblog

Justice Kagan’s dissent called the ruling “a severe blow that renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” arguing it “eviscerates” the Act’s ability to remedy vote dilution. Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, wrote separately that Section 2 “does not regulate districting at all.” NAACP counsel Janai Nelson warned that overturning the map would be a “staggering reversal of precedent” that would “throw maps across the country into chaos.”

SCOTUSblog

Election-law expert Nicholas Stephanopoulos estimates about 70 of the 435 House districts are protected by Section 2, making them vulnerable if states justify maps on partisan grounds. The decision arrives amid a mid-decade redistricting surge, with seven states already adopting new maps for the 2026 elections. Analysts differ on how many minority-opportunity districts will be lost, and the Court left unanswered whether states must disclose the precise political objectives guiding map drawing.

Newsweek

• “That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander,” — Justice Samuel Alito

Newsweek

• “today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter.” — Justice Elena Kagan

Newsweek

• “does not regulate districting at all.” — Justice Clarence Thomas

SCOTUSblog

States are expected to file new congressional maps that emphasize partisan objectives, while civil-rights groups prepare lawsuits testing the revised Gingles framework. The 2026 midterm elections, already closely contested, will likely become a legal as well as a political contest over district lines.

Newsweek