Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights

News

A person putting on an "I Voted" sticker.

The Supreme Court’s review of Louisiana v. Callais could narrow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and limit challenges to racially discriminatory voting maps.

Getty Images, kali9

Background and Legal Landscape

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is one of the most powerful tools for combatting racial discrimination in voting. It prohibits any voting law, district map, or electoral process that results in a denial of the right to vote based on race. Crucially, Section 2 allows for private citizens and civil rights groups to challenge discriminatory electoral systems, a protection that has ensured fairer representation for communities of color. However, the Supreme Court is now considering whether to narrow Section 2’s reach in a high profile court case, Louisiana v. Callais. The case focuses on whether Louisiana’s congressional map—which only contains one majority Black district despite Black residents making up almost one-third of the population—violates Section 2 by diluting Black voting power. The Court’s decision to hear the case marks the latest chapter in the recent trend of judicial decisions around the scope and applications of the Voting Rights Act.


The Louisiana Case and Its Broader Context

In 2022, a federal district court found that Louisiana’s congressional map violated Section 2 by packing and cracking, essentially separating into districts, Black voters in a way that undermined their electoral influence. The court then ordered the creation of a second majority Black district, which would likely lead to another Black Democratic representative. Louisiana officials appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that redrawing maps based on race violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Court initially paused the lower court’s ruling, allowing the disputed map to remain in place for the 2022 midterms. But after a similar case from Alabama, Allen v Milligan (2023), reaffirmed Section 2 protections, the justices sent Louisiana’s case back to the lower courts for reconsideration.

However, now the Court has decided to revisit the case, this time focusing on not just the congressional map, but also on whether private citizens and civil rights groups should even be allowed to sue under Section 2. This question is pivotal; for decades, nearly all Section 2 lawsuits have been brought by private plaintiffs, rather than the Department of Justice. If the Court ruled that only the federal government could bring these lawsuits, enforcement of Section 2 would effectively stop, leaving many discriminatory maps uncontested.

Implications

The implications of Louisiana v. Callais extend far beyond Louisiana. Curtailing Section 2 would fundamentally reshape the balance of power between federal civil-rights enforcement and state election control. It would also make it significantly more difficult to challenge racially gerrymandered congressional maps in many states where rapid demographic shifts are already altering political representation. Critics of the Court’s decision to hear the case warn that weakening Section 2 could allow states to adopt maps that entrench racial disparities under the guise of race-neutral redistricting, resulting in minority communities having no way to fight systemic discrimination in elections. Proponents of the case however, argue that Section 2 gives the federal government too much control over state redistricting, forcing states to prioritize race in map drawing, undermining both race-neutral principles and state sovereignty.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s reconsideration of Louisiana v. Callais places the future of the Voting Rights Act at a crucial inflection point. Section 2 has long served as concrete legislation to help minority voters seeking fair representation when state legislatures fail to uphold equality. Now, its survival may hinge on how the justices interpret who can enforce it, and how far the federal government can go in protecting the right to vote. The Court’s decision here could determine whether voting rights enforcement remains a national guarantee, or becomes a fragmented system defined by state politics.


Shailee Sinha is a second-year undergraduate at the University of California, San Diego, majoring in Political Science with a concentration in American Politics.

Louisiana v. Callais: The Supreme Court’s Next Test for Voting Rights was originally published by the Alliance for Civic Engagement and is republished with permission.


Read More

Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

The Rule of Law depends on action, not blind optimism. Explore how critical hope, civic engagement, and accountability can strengthen democracy.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

Only Collective Action Can Turn Outrage Into Accountability and Protect the Rule of Law

The past year has shaken our faith in institutions and, perhaps, in each other. If not already eviscerated, the Rule of Law is under attack. In this atmosphere of constant chaos, we have become numbed by the events of each day and the scope of unprecedented executive action. Yet, even in the face of growing autocracy and oligarchy, the Rule of Law can prevail.

“There is a crack, a crack in everything. That’s how the light gets in.” In the current moment, it is tempting to reach for hope as comfort, or to repeat familiar lines about resilience, unity, or the promise of American ideals—such as this one from Leonard Cohen. But as educator Jeffrey Duncan-Andrade warns, not all hope is created equal. The kind of hope that ignores suffering, that insists the Rule of Law will revive itself without action, is not hope at all. It is what he calls “hokey or “mythical hope,” a passive optimism that ultimately deepens despair. What this moment demands instead is “critical hope”: a form of hope grounded in struggle and action.

Keep ReadingShow less

Are State Courts More Protective of Transgender People than Federal Courts?

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Tuesday that state laws prohibiting trans women and girls from participating on female sports teams do not violate the Equal Protection Clause — the seventh Supreme Court ruling curbing the rights of trans people in just the past 14 months. Since May 2025, the Supreme Court has allowed the Trump administration to ban trans people from serving in the military, upheld a Tennessee law banning gender-affirming care for trans minors, given anti-LGBTQ+ parents a veto over LGBTQ+-inclusive content in their children’s classrooms, endorsed Trump’s policy requiring trans people to list their sex assigned at birth on their passports, reinstated an injunction against policies barring schools from outing trans students to their parents against students’ wishes, and determined that Colorado’s ban on anti-LGBTQ+ conversion therapy must be subjected to strict scrutiny, a form of judicial review that almost no law survives.

However, there may be some cause for optimism. In an article published in The Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law, I conducted a comprehensive survey of state court cases that impacted the rights and lives of trans people between 2022 and 2024. The survey showed state courts have an essential role to play in protecting trans people in an increasingly hostile political environment. Amongst some ominous signs for trans rights, there were important signals of hope in the survey.

Keep ReadingShow less
A gavel.

The rule of law, American democracy, constitutional rights, and judicial independence.

Getty Images, David Talukdar

In Texas, People Don’t Kill People, Guns Kill People

It has been said that a good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. Apparently, that’s not the case in very red Collin County, Texas, where a self-described recovering alcoholic fatally shot his daughter in the chest, only to be let off the hook by a sympathetic grand jury. As a retired justice of the New York State Supreme Court, the case intrigued me and I tried to understand why the prosecutor, upon failing to obtain an indictment, did not try again.

In January 2025, the victim and her boyfriend traveled from England to visit her father at his home in Collin County where the shooting occurred. Although evidence presented to a grand jury cannot be disclosed, it is reasonably assumed that the grand jury was provided with the statement made by the father to the police at the scene immediately following the shooting. In that statement, the father related how he had taken his daughter, at her request, to see his gun, and that when he brought her to his bedroom and removed the gun from a cabinet in which he kept it, “it went off.” He could not recall if his finger had been on the trigger.

Keep ReadingShow less
Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Citizens in Name Only: What the Supreme Court Can’t Fix

This month, the Supreme Court will rule on Trump v. Barbara, the case that could upend birthright citizenship as we have known it for over a century.

But the current debate over birthright citizenship overlooks the fact that legal citizenship — by birthright or naturalization — has never fully protected marginalized Americans. People of color, women, LGBTQ, and lower-income Americans have long been CINOs: Citizens in Name Only. Throughout our 250-year history, they have lacked full social citizenship - access to social/welfare entitlements, political citizenship – access to voting rights, and cultural citizenship – recognition as members of the American family. So, while a court ruling can determine who gets a U.S. birth certificate, it cannot guarantee societal inclusion.

Keep ReadingShow less