Supreme Court’s Louisiana v. Callais Ruling Undermines Section 2 Enforcement

On April 30, 2026 the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 6-3 opinion in *Louisiana v. Callais*. The Court affirmed that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 remains law, but it limited the provision’s enforceability by holding that compliance with the Act cannot be treated as a “compelling interest” that justifies race-based districting. The ruling therefore prevents courts from requiring states to draw a proportional number of majority-minority districts when a minority group comprises a substantial share of the population.

Salon

Section 2 obliges states to provide minorities an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice. Federal courts in 2022 found Louisiana’s single-district map illegal because the state’s Black population—about 33 % of residents—warrants two majority-Black districts among its six congressional seats. The Court’s earlier decision in *Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP* (2023) barred courts from using vote-dilution analysis to prove racial gerrymandering, a precedent the *Callais* opinion expands. Justice John Roberts has also authored opinions in *Allen v. Milligan*, another Section 2 case.

Salon

• Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, emphasizing that the Constitution “almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.”

Salon

• Justice John Roberts was the sole dissenting vote, historically critical of the Voting Rights Act.

Salon

• Alanah Odoms, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, led the organization’s challenge to the map.

Salon

• Hilary Harris Klein, senior counsel for the Southern Coalition for Social Justice, defended the Act’s role in creating a multiracial democracy.

Salon

• Rhyane Wagner, senior policy manager at the Black Voters Matter Fund, described the decision as a shift from impact-based to intent-based analysis.

Salon

• Charles Taylor, state organizer for the Mississippi NAACP, warned the ruling could usher in “Jim Crow 2.0.”

Salon

• Louisiana’s Black residents constitute roughly 33 % of the state’s population.

Salon

• The state has six congressional districts; Section 2 analysis suggests two should be majority-Black.

Salon

• In 2024 Louisiana adopted a map with two majority-minority districts, which the plaintiffs argued discriminated against non-Black voters.

Salon

• The 2022 federal district court barred use of the map for the 2024 election cycle.

Salon

The ACLU of Louisiana characterized the ruling as the loss of a “seatbelt of our democracy,” noting that Black and brown communities will continue to fight for representation through legislative action and public protest. The Southern Coalition described the decision as dismantling the “crown jewel” of the civil-rights movement and warned that focusing on legislators’ intent rather than electoral impact could enable “whitewashing” of racial gerrymandering. The Black Voters Matter Fund highlighted Justice Roberts’ long-standing opposition to the Act and warned that the new standard makes it harder to prove discriminatory intent. Mississippi’s NAACP organizer warned that state officials may use the decision to dilute Black voting power in both congressional and state-wide races.

Salon

Civil-rights advocates argue the opinion removes a practical tool for challenging racially polarized districting, potentially allowing legislatures to justify discriminatory maps as partisan. They cite the risk of “Jim Crow 2.0” tactics, where race-based gerrymandering proceeds under the guise of partisan redistricting. Experts also note that the intent-focused test may be difficult to apply, reducing plaintiffs’ ability to demonstrate violations.

Salon

The Court’s majority asserts that the Constitution rarely allows race-based classification, while plaintiffs and scholars contend that the decision “obliterates” the protective effect of Section 2. No empirical data have yet been presented on how lower courts will interpret “intent” versus “impact,” leaving a gap in guidance for future litigation.

Salon

By shifting the legal standard, the ruling could enable states to redraw congressional, legislative, and judicial districts without regard to minority voting strength. This may affect representation for Black, Latino, Asian, and other minority groups nationwide and could reshape the political balance in future elections.

Salon

• “the Constitution almost never permits the Federal Government or a State to discriminate on the basis of race.” — Justice Samuel Alito

Salon

• “Today, we lost one of the last seatbelts of our democracy.” — Alanah Odoms, Executive Director, ACLU of Louisiana

Salon

• “It was foundational and had such a wonderful impact in creating a more multiracial democracy where our representatives look more like the general population,” — Hilary Harris Klein, Senior Counsel, Southern Coalition for Social Justice

Salon

• “Justice Roberts has been after the Voting Rights Act for at least 40 years — as long as I’ve been alive. He believes the Voting Rights Act to be a mistake, if you will, and that’s putting it lightly,” — Rhyane Wagner, Senior Policy Manager, Black Voters Matter Fund

Salon

• “If you ‘don’t consider race,’ you could gerrymander racially, and we could lose a great deal of the Black seats that we have in Mississippi,” — Charles Taylor, State Organizer, Mississippi NAACP

Salon

Mississippi’s governor announced a special legislative session within 21 days to redraw the state supreme-court districts, citing the *Callais* decision. Civil-rights groups plan to monitor redistricting efforts in other Southern states and to file new lawsuits challenging maps that appear to rely on partisan intent while diluting minority voting power.

Salon