Both cases turn on Louisiana v. Callais, decided April 29, 2026, by a 6-3 Court in an opinion by Justice Alito, with Justice Kagan dissenting, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson. The Court narrowed Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, holding that it “imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race”. The dispute began when Louisiana drew one majority-minority congressional district out of six after the 2020 census; voters sued, arguing Section 2 required two districts. After creating a second minority district, Louisiana was sued again, this time by self-described “non-Black voters” who called the new map a racial gerrymander. The Court agreed with those plaintiffs, concluding that “[b]ecause the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race”.
Alabama’s case asks whether a Section 2 claim can survive the standard established in Callais. On May 11, 2026, the Supreme Court vacated the judgments in three Alabama congressional cases and remanded them “for further consideration in light of Louisiana v. Callais,” over a dissent by Justice Sotomayor joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson. On that reconsideration, the three-judge court did the opposite of what the state hoped: it found plaintiffs likely to prove the Legislature intentionally discriminated against Black voters in enacting the 2023 congressional plan, and likely to establish a Section 2 violation under Callais itself, writing that “Callais does not disturb our finding that the Legislature intentionally discriminated based on race” and that it was “duty-bound to preliminarily enjoin the Secretary from conducting any 2026 congressional elections” under the plan. The U.S. Supreme Court stayed that order on June 2, 2026, over a dissent by the same three justices, leaving Alabama to run its 2026 elections under the 2023 plan. The case is now before the Court as Allen v. Singleton, No. 26-118; the docket shows it was distributed for the Court’s October 16 conference, and the October 19 order list contains no action on it.
Louisiana’s case asks the reverse question. At an October 27 hearing in Shreveport, Attorney General Liz Murrill is expected to ask the three-judge panel to end the case, arguing that the 6th District the Legislature redrew on May 29 no longer violates the ruling and that keeping the case open would waste judicial and party resources. The Callais plaintiffs want it kept open so the panel can examine the 2nd District, now held by Rep. Troy Carter, though as one account notes, “[t]heir position does not mean that a court has ruled the district unconstitutional.” If the case is not dismissed, the parties must submit a proposed roadmap by December 15.
Taken together, the two cases show how far Callais reaches. Alabama tests whether a Section 2 claim can still be won under the new standard, since the court below applied it and ruled against the map anyway. Louisiana tests the reach of the remand itself: whether the same litigation can now be turned on LA-2, the state’s only remaining majority-Black district.
Find us on:
