Supreme Court divided over Louisiana map with second black-majority district
The Supreme Court is currently deliberating the legality of a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority-black districts, a change that hasn’t occurred in decades. This case hinges on the intersection of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act—designed to protect minority voting power—and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which prohibits race-based decisions without compelling justification. The map was amended after a federal court’s ruling that the previous version, which had only one majority-black district, violated federal law.
Some justices raised concerns about the extent to which race should influence redistricting, with arguments revolving around potential overreach in the use of race in the electoral process. While proponents argue that the population’s demographics necessitate at least two black representatives, opponents contend that considering race in this context is politically motivated and violates the Equal Protection Clause.
the Supreme Court’s ruling, anticipated by June, could considerably impact how states balance race and politics in redistricting, with profound implications for minority depiction and congressional dynamics.
Supreme Court appears divided over Louisiana map with second black-majority district
The Supreme Court on Monday weighed whether a Louisiana congressional map that includes two majority-black districts for the first time in decades is a lawful effort to comply with the Voting Rights Act or an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
At the heart of the case is a tension between two key legal standards: Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which instructs states to avoid any unnecessary dilutions to minority groups’ voting powers, and the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, which bars race-based decision-making without compelling justification.
“We need the Court to clarify what the rules are for redistricting,” Republican Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill said in a statement before oral arguments Monday.
I’m here at the United States Supreme Court to defend Louisiana’s Congressional map. #SCOTUS
🎙️Listen live here: https://t.co/HOqEPNZSNT pic.twitter.com/PdEh40araq
— Attorney General Liz Murrill (@AGLizMurrill) March 24, 2025
Louisiana’s current map was adopted after a federal court ruled its original post-2020 census map, with just one black-majority district out of six, violated federal law. But after lawmakers added a second majority-black district, a new group of plaintiffs sued, calling the revised lines an “odious racial gerrymander.”
During Monday’s oral arguments, several conservative justices expressed concern over whether the use of race in redistricting has gone too far. Justice Brett Kavanaugh said race-based remedies must have an “endpoint,” while Justice Neil Gorsuch questioned whether any use of race in mapmaking is inherently unconstitutional.
“Certainly politics played a role in this district, but didn’t race?” Gorsuch asked attorneys for counsel opposing the drawn map. “Isn’t saying race was one consideration another way of saying race predominated? And how do we square that with the 14th Amendment’s promise that race should play no role in our laws?”
Meanwhile, Obama-appointed Justice Sonia Sotomayor suggested it would be significant if the high court were to do anything substantial to voting rights precedent in a case such as this one, given that lower courts consistently kept Louisiana from adopting its post-2020 census map.
Plaintiffs “have a decision by a lower court that they’re likely to succeed. They have an appeal of a temporary restraining order where that court says they’re likely to win, and we have a merits panel who looks at it and says they’re likely to win. That’s not enough to provide a good faith basis for believing that they need to comply with Section Two?” Sotomayor asked counsel for the state.
Louisiana officials argued they are stuck between conflicting legal obligations and political realities, including pressure to preserve Republican power in the House, such as Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R-LA) seat.
“It’s a no-win scenario,” said Louisiana Solicitor General Benjamin Aguinaga, adding that constant litigation leaves states, courts, and voters in limbo.
SUPREME COURT AGREES TO WEIGH DISPUTE OVER LOUISIANA’S TWO MAJORITY-BLACK DISTRICTS
Supporters of the second majority-black district argue it is warranted in part because at least a third of the state’s population is black, and therefore the state’s black residents need at least two congressional representatives. But detractors say that the consideration of race is inherently political and an affront to the Equal Protection Clause.
The high court’s decision, expected by June, could clarify how states balance race and politics in redistricting — a volatile issue with major implications for minority representation and control of Congress in future elections.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...