The U.S. Supreme Court made an extraordinary move on June 27, when it declined to resolve Louisiana v. Callais and instead scheduled the case for a second round of briefing and argument next Term. The unsigned order keeps January 2024’s remedial map (Act 2/SB 8) in place and promises a follow-up directive “in due course” that may add new questions for counsel. An NPR article highlights just how rare this is, quoting several redistricting experts on the matter. Some have called the decision “puzzling,” given the straightforward factual record, while others suggest this decision (or non-decision) by the court could presage either a major reaffirmation or a dramatic curtailment of the Voting Rights Act. Read the court’s order setting the case for reargument.
Initially, a federal court struck down Louisiana’s 2022 congressional map and required a second Black‑majority district under the Voting Rights Act. The remedial map was enacted in 2024, but subsequently, a three‑judge panel struck it down as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. On appeal, the U.S. Supreme Court temporarily allowed the map to be used for the 2024 election.
Why might the Court hesitate? The official order simply “restores [the case] to the calendar for reargument,” but it may set the stage for an “intractable conflict” between current Section 2 doctrine (as revitalized in Allen v. Milligan) and the Equal Protection Clause. Other commentators agree that reargument could be an indicator that the justices are sharply divided or contemplating a broad doctrinal shift.
Louisiana will likely head into its 2026 cycle under a map whose long-term legality is uncertain, and practitioners across the country will spend the summer gaming out whether the Court intends to rewrite, refine, or reaffirm the modern Voting Rights Act when it reconvenes in October.
Find us on:
