Louisiana v. Callais: The Next Big Redistricting Battle is Now at the Supreme Court

The U.S. Supreme Court will soon hear Louisiana v. Callais, a case that could finally rein in decades of judicial overreach in redistricting and return power to where it belongs — the states and their elected legislatures.

At issue is whether federal courts have taken Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act far beyond its original intent. What began as a law to prevent discrimination in voting has increasingly been used to force states to sort voters by race, creating districts engineered to deliver predetermined political outcomes.

That’s exactly what happened in Louisiana. After the 2020 Census, lawmakers approved a congressional map with one majority-Black district — a fair reflection of the state’s diverse population and long-standing communities of interest. But a federal judge struck it down, ordering the creation of a second majority-minority district stretching from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. The result was a sprawling, misshapen district that connected communities with little in common beyond race.

Critics called it what it is: a racial gerrymander forced by the courts. And for many, it confirmed a deeper problem — that federal judges, not elected representatives, are deciding what Louisiana’s political map should look like.

Now, Louisiana v. Callais gives the Supreme Court a chance to clarify whether this kind of race-based mapmaking is constitutional at all. The Court has asked whether “the intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments” — a question that strikes at the heart of America’s long debate over whether equality means equal treatment or equal outcomes.

Those pushing for aggressive racial gerrymanders argue that minority voters must be grouped together to have a fair chance at representation. But that logic turns the Voting Rights Act on its head. The law was designed to protect every citizen’s right to vote, not to guarantee seats based on race. As Justice Clarence Thomas has long argued, the Constitution is color-blind — and the government should be too.

If the Supreme Court scales back the misuse of Section 2, it would not undo the Voting Rights Act. It would simply restore it to its proper purpose: ensuring equal opportunity without imposing racial quotas. States like Louisiana could draw maps based on compactness, geography, and shared community interests rather than racial targets set by federal judges.

Such a ruling would also reaffirm an essential principle of federalism — that the Constitution entrusts states, not Washington, with the power to run their own elections. In recent years, the judiciary has too often acted as a super-legislature, imposing its own vision of political fairness rather than deferring to the people’s representatives. Callais is an opportunity to restore balance and humility to that process.

The Supreme Court’s decision, expected by summer 2026, will shape how every state handles redistricting for years to come. But at its core, this case is about something bigger than maps: whether America will continue down a path of race-conscious policymaking, or finally return to the simple promise of the Fourteenth Amendment — that every citizen, regardless of color, is entitled to equal protection under the law.

For Louisiana and the nation, that’s a principle worth defending.