Supreme Court Overturns Louisiana’s Black-Majority Congressional District

Supreme Court held that Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violated the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. Justice Samuel Alito authored the majority, labeling the district reverse discrimination.

New York Magazine

Congress later amended the Voting Rights Act to cover discriminatory effects, a bipartisan effort backed by President Reagan.

New York Magazine

Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority, which cites Justice Thurgood Marshall’s dissent in *Mobile v. Bolden*. Civil-rights leaders Bernice King and Damon Hewitt condemned the ruling. Press Robinson, the plaintiff, was not a party to Supreme Court’s question.

New York Magazine

Louisiana has not elected a Black statewide official since Reconstruction; the Sixth Congressional District, created as a remedy for a violation of Black voting power in a Confederate stronghold, is eliminated by the Court’s order, removing the seat that complied with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

New York Magazine

Alito argued that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act was intended to enforce the Constitution rather than conflict with it. The Court framed the district as unconstitutional reverse discrimination, not a remedial measure.

New York Magazine

Bernice King described the ruling as a moral disgrace and an assault on Black political power. Damon Hewitt characterized the decision as a lie and a half, comparing it to the falsehoods of *Plessy v. Ferguson*. Critics argue the decision revives a neo-Confederate order that denies Black representation.

New York Magazine

Activists assembled in Montgomery and Selma for a weekend civil-rights rally, including the “All Roads Lead to the South” day of action. Speakers linked the Callais decision to efforts to restore Black political power in the South.

New York Magazine

Court’s view conflicts with amendment to the Voting Rights Act that broadened liability to discriminatory effects, not merely intent. Moreover, Supreme Court’s central question—whether a state’s compliance with the Voting Rights Act violates the Constitution—was not raised by plaintiff Press Robinson, highlighting a procedural gap.

New York Magazine

• “was not only a legal decision, it is a moral disgrace and a shameless assault on Black political power,” — Bernice King, Civil-rights leader

New York Magazine

• “They’re saying that efforts to fix any voter suppression against Black people is unconstitutional. That’s a bald-faced lie.” — Damon Hewitt, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law

New York Magazine

• “Section 2 of the Voting Rights … was designed to enforce the Constitution — not collide with it,” — Samuel Alito, Justice (majority opinion)

New York Magazine

• “So a law that seeks to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment by prohibiting mere disparate impact would fail to enforce a right that the Amendment secures. That is never ‘appropriate,’” — Samuel Alito, Justice (majority opinion)

New York Magazine

The decision has spurred redistricting initiatives across the South, and civil-rights groups urge Congress to reaffirm its authority under the Voting Rights Act. Litigation is expected.

New York Magazine