The U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais on October 15, 2025. The case centers around whether the creation of a second majority-minority congressional district in Louisiana violates the 14th and 15th Amendments, which were enacted, in part, to prohibit racial discrimination in voting rights. In 1965, Congress further codified these amendments in the landmark Voting Rights Act (VRA) to end discriminatory voting practices. Section 2 of the VRA—the last bulwark against voting discrimination that has not been struck down by the Supreme Court—is being challenged in this case.
Background
In 2024, a federal district court determined that Louisiana’s new congressional map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars the denial or abridgement of the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language-minority group. The map that was struck down included just one of six majority-minority congressional districts, although roughly one-third, or 1.45 million, of its residents are Black. In drawing a new map in accordance with the court order, the state protected the districts of white members of Congress, including Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA). Three “non-African American” voters challenged the new maps as a dilution of the voting rights.
Last term, the Supreme Court heard argument in Callais as to whether the second majority-minority district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. This should have been a seemingly easy case to decide, as the court upheld Section 2 of the VRA the year before in Allen v. Milligan, holding that Alabama diluted the voting rights of its Black residents, who account for 27 percent of its population. However, the court punted its decision last term and set Callais for re-argument, directing the parties to brief the court on “[w]hether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution.”
This case once again puts Section 2 squarely in the crosshairs of the court and could result in the elimination of the last remaining bulwark against racial discrimination in voting. Unsurprisingly, both litigants—the state of Louisiana and the self-described “non-African American” voters—are now arguing that Section 2 enforcement through redistricting—i.e., creating majority-minority congressional districts in accordance with the VRA—is unconstitutional and in violation of the Reconstruction Amendments. In effect, these arguments strike at the heart of the 14th and 15th Amendments as well as the civil rights movement, which achieved monumental steps forward in creating equality for all Americans and ending discrimination following the Civil War.
Previous Supreme Court rulings have weakened the Voting Rights Act
Louisiana v. Callais provides Chief Justice John Roberts—who has been antagonistic to the VRA throughout his career—and his colleagues the opportunity to completely neuter the VRA by substantially eliminating the ability of minority voters to challenge discriminatory voting practices.
Already during his 20-year tenure as chief justice, Roberts has authored or joined a series of cases that restrict or eliminate minority groups’ voting power. In 2013, the chief justice declared in Shelby County v. Holder that Section 4 of the VRA is unconstitutional, eliminating the formula that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) used to identify jurisdictions that engaged in voting rights discrimination. This means that Section 5 of the VRA—requiring covered jurisdictions to receive preclearance from the DOJ when changing voting rules—is effectively inoperable until Congress creates a new coverage formula, something it hasn’t managed to do over the past decade. In short, Shelby County gave states and localities with a history of voting rights discrimination the power to discriminate again.
In 2021, in Rucho v. Common Cause, Chief Justice Roberts authored an opinion that not only allowed partisan gerrymandering but also found that courts cannot evaluate whether partisan gerrymandering is illegal or unconstitutional. This decision led to the current gerrymandering battles that could well determine control of the House of Representatives next year.
Also read
That same year, in Brnovich v. Democratic National Committee, the far-right justices narrowed Section 2 of the VRA to make it much more difficult to challenge voting regulations. Brnovich made it easier for states and localities to hinder voting rights if the impact of the new regulations is “small in absolute terms” and the jurisdiction being challenged provides more opportunities to vote now than it did in 1982.
Today, the entirety of Section 2 of the VRA is at stake in Callais. The Roberts Court appears on the precipice of finding that Section 2 and the creation of majority-minority districts to comply with the landmark law is unconstitutional. If that happens, this case will be the crown jewel in rewriting history to assert that the Reconstruction Amendments—the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution—were intended to be racially neutral rather than to remedy the historical atrocities of slavery and ensure that Black Americans are not discriminated against.
Such a finding would supercharge gerrymandering practices and entrench political power over the will of voters for the foreseeable future. Louisiana v. Callais could allow states to eliminate, in favor of political gamesmanship, congressional and state-level districts held by Black, Latino, and other people of color. A recent report indicates that an adverse ruling could wipe out 19 congressional seats protected by the VRA and all but eliminate any chance for a member of the Democratic Party to win a congressional election in Southern states. It further notes that up to 30 percent of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11 percent of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus could be drawn out of their seats.
Conclusion
In short, Louisiana v. Callais could well be the culmination of Chief Justice Roberts’ goal to eliminate the Voting Rights Act. If that comes to pass, it will set U.S. democracy back generations, making voting rights a right in name only.