U.S. Supreme Court Reshapes Voting Rights Act Landscape in Louisiana v. Callais

On April 29, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that using race in drawing Congressional districts is prohibited, significantly revising the previous understanding of federal law. The Court held that Section 2 of the Federal Voting Rights Act (FVRA) does not require the drawing of Congressional districts based upon race, absent a showing that such redrawing is intended to address recent and intentional discrimination against minorities.

The Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana Congressional district map that was drafted to comply with FVRA Section 2, where Louisiana had previously had only one. The ruling did not explicitly strike down Section 2, but significantly revised the standard one must meet to prosecute a Section 2 violation. Louisiana v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___, slip op. at 26 (2026).

Background

The Supreme Court struck down Louisiana’s Congressional district map, passed by State Senate Bill 8, that provided for two majority-Black voter districts. The map was enacted following multiple years of litigation under Section 2, which lower courts held that the State’s prior map likely violated the FVRA by providing Black voters with only a single majority-minority district. As a result, Louisiana redrew its Congressional district map in 2024 via SB 8 to include two majority-minority districts where Black voters had an opportunity to elect their candidates of choice. The new SB 8 map was then challenged as a racial gerrymander in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that the SB 8 map impermissibly prioritized race in drawing Congressional districts, thereby violating Equal Protection principles. 

The Voting Rights Act Then and Now

Congress originally passed the FVRA in 1965 and significantly amended it in 1982. The Supreme Court first interpreted the amended Section 2 of the FVRA in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Under Gingles, a plaintiff challenging a districting map under Section 2 had to make the following four showings, called preconditions:

1. The protected minority group was “sufficiently large and [geographically] compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district.” (the “majority-minority” district precondition).
2. The minority group must “be able to show that it is politically cohesive.”
3. The minority group must be able “to demonstrate that the white majority vote[d] sufficiently as a bloc to enable it . . . to defeat the minority’s preferred candidate.”
4. That the “totality of the circumstances” showed that the political process was not equally open to minority voters. Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986).

Louisiana v. Callais alters this test under Section 2.

First Gingles Precondition

Previously, a map showing a possible minority-majority district would largely satisfy this precondition. Now, “plaintiffs cannot use race as a districting criterion.” Callais, slip op. at 29. The map “must meet all the State’s legitimate districting objectives, including traditional districting criteria and the State’s specified political goals.” Id. This can include “targeting partisan distribution of voters, a specific margin of victory for certain incumbents, or any other goal not prohibited by the Constitution.” Id. In other words, the Court specifically stated that protection of incumbents in their Congressional seats and partisan political positioning of districts (e.g., Republican vs. Democrat) are Constitutionally permissible State objectives. Therefore, while racial gerrymandering is almost always prohibited, politically partisan gerrymandering is allowed. 

Second and Third Gingles Precondition

To prove politically cohesive voting by the minority group and racial bloc voting by the majority, plaintiffs now must provide an analysis that controls/screens out party affiliation. Effectively, political partisan gerrymandering is not only legal, but is a defense to racial discrimination should partisanship and race align, as they do in many contexts. In other words, a map proven to be drawn solely to disfavor Black voters because of race is a violation, but a map drawn to favor Republican voters would be permissible, even though many local Black voters may be Democrats. 

Fourth Gingles Precondition

The totality of circumstances considerations has been narrowed considerably. Prior to this decision, present-day racial disparities resulting from past societal discrimination were given considerable weight in showing a FVRA violation, even where there was no proof of present-day intent to racially discriminate. With this decision, these historical disparities are given “much less weight.” Id. at 31. Instead, a FVRA violation can only be proven with evidence of “present-day intentional racial discrimination regarding voting.” Id. at 30.

Impact

The immediate impact of this decision at the Congressional level will be significant and nationwide. Without proof that a proposed map explicitly and intentionally discriminates against minority voters, it will be difficult to challenge Congressional districts under Section 2. Further, given the High Court’s “blessing” in this regard, this may cause more States to engage in partisan gerrymandering, as has already occurred in California and Texas. Incumbent Members of Congress will also likely be further entrenched, as protecting incumbents is a permissible race-neutral criterion to justify districting map boundaries and is left up to the State-level political process. At the state and local levels, the impacts of this decision are not entirely clear at this time. Both the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) and the Oregon Voting Rights Act (ORVRA) have state voting rights acts, and these laws may be impacted by this decision. Future legal alerts will address the impacts of Louisiana v. Callais on these laws in detail. 

If you have questions about the impacts of this decision, please contact Matthew “Mal” Richardson and Jim Priest. 

Subscribe here to receive future BBK legal alerts. 

Disclaimer: BBK Legal Alerts are not intended as legal advice. Additional facts, facts specific to your situation, or future developments may affect subjects contained herein. Seek the advice of an attorney before acting or relying upon any information herein.