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

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government
The U.S. White House.
Getty Images, Caroline Purser

White House ‘Score‑Settling’ Raises Fears of a Weaponized Government

The recent casual acknowledgement by the White House Chief of Staff that the President is engaged in prosecutorial “score settling” marks a dangerous departure from the rule-of-law norms that restrain executive power in a constitutional democracy. This admission that the State is using its legal authority to punish perceived enemies is antithetical to core Constitutional principles and the rule of law.

The American experiment was built on the rejection of personal rule and political revenge, replacing them with laws that bind even those who hold the highest offices. In 1776, Thomas Paine wrote, “For as in absolute governments the King is law, so in free countries the law ought to be King; and there ought to be no other.” The essence of these words can be found in our Constitution that deliberately placed power in the hands of three co-equal branches of government–Legislative, Executive, and Judicial.

Keep ReadingShow less
Five Years After January 6, Dozens of Pardoned Insurrectionists Have Been Arrested Again

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as people try to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, in Washington, D.C.

Brent Stirton/Getty Images

Five Years After January 6, Dozens of Pardoned Insurrectionists Have Been Arrested Again

When President Donald Trump on the first day of his second term granted clemency to nearly 1,600 people convicted in connection with the Capitol riot on January 6, 2021, Linnaea Honl-Stuenkel immediately set up a Google Alert to track these individuals and see if they’d end up back in the criminal justice system. Honl-Stuenkel, who works at a government watchdog nonprofit, said she didn’t want people to forget the horror of that day — despite the president’s insistence that it was a nonviolent event, a “day of love.”

Honl-Stuenkel, the digital director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics (CREW) in Washington, D.C., said the Google Alerts came quickly.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Arrest of Maduro Is Not How Democratic Nations Behave

UK newspaper front pages display stories on the capture and arrest of President Nicolas Maduro from Venezuela in a newsagent shop, on January 4, 2026 in Somerset, England.

Getty Images, Matt Cardy

The Arrest of Maduro Is Not How Democratic Nations Behave

The United States' capture and arrest of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro is another sign of the demise of the rules-based international order that this country has championed for decades. It moves us one step closer to a “might-makes-right” world, the kind of world that brings smiles to the faces of autocrats in Moscow and Beijing.

“On the eve of America's 250th anniversary,” Stewart Patrick, who served in the George W. Bush State Department, argues, “Trump has launched a second American Revolution. He's declared independence from the world that the United States created.” Like a character in a Western movie, for the president, this country’s foreign policy seems to be shoot first, ask questions later.

Keep ReadingShow less
​A billboard in Times Square.

A billboard in Times Square calls for the release of the Epstein Files on July 23, 2025 in New York City. Attorney General Pam Bondi briefed President Donald Trump in May on the Justice Department's review of the documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein case, telling him that his name appeared in the files.

Getty Images, Adam Gray

FBI–DOJ Failure on 1996 Epstein Complaint Demands Congressional Accountability

On Aug. 29, 1996, Maria Farmer reported her sexual assault by Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell to the New York Police Department. Ms. Farmer contacted the FBI as advised by the police. On Sept. 3, 1996, the FBI identified the case as “child pornography” since naked or semi-naked hard copy pictures existed.

It wasn’t until Nov. 19, 2025 when the Epstein Files Transparency Act became law whereby all files – including Farmer’s 1996 complaint -- were to be made public by Dec. 19. Pam Bondi’s Department of Justice (DOJ) failed to release 100% of the files as mandated by law.

Keep ReadingShow less