Louisiana v. Callais: The Impact and Future of Voting Rights

By Rich Hahn, ACP

On April 29th, the US Supreme Court issued a major decision in Louisiana v. Callais, 608 US ___ (2026), regarding Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (§ 2, 52 USC § 10301) (hereafter referred to as the Voting Rights Act or Section 2).[1] The decision overturned decades of Supreme Court precedent requiring that states comply with the 14th and 15th Amendments and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act when drawing majority-minority districts.

To understand the impacts of this decision, we must look at the history of this case, which started in 2022 after the census and reapportionment. Based on the Court’s opinion and the sources listed below, here is a summary of the history, issue, and holding in this case, followed by an overview of the arguments and rationale of Justice Kagan’s dissent and the possible impacts this decision could have on minority voting rights.[2]

This case began in 2022 after the Louisiana State Legislature drew a district map with only one majority-Black district. That map was struck down because it likely violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting Black voting power. In response, Louisiana enacted a new map (SB8), adding a second majority-Black district.

After that, voters from other demographics sued, arguing that the newly drawn districts were unconstitutional because mapmakers used race as the predominant factor. The state defended the map by claiming it complied with the Voting Rights Act. A three-judge panel from the federal district court ruled in favor of the other voters, stating that race was improperly used as the primary reason for drawing the district maps. The case was appealed to the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which affirmed the district court’s decision. It was then appealed to the US Supreme Court, which upheld the original decision.

The main issue the Supreme Court considered in this case was whether drawing district maps based primarily on race was unconstitutional and violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Supreme Court’s 6-to-3 answer was yes, with the following rationale:

  1. No Compelling Interest: Because Section 2 did not legally compel Louisiana to create the second majority-Black district, the state had no compelling interest to satisfy the 14th Amendment’s strict scrutiny requirements for race-based districting.
  2. Intentional Discrimination Requirement: In its interpretation of Section 2, the Court declared 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.”

Justice Kagan wrote a lengthy dissent, describing the decision as “the latest chapter in the majority’s now-completed demolition of the Voting Rights Act.” She argued that the majority invented new evidentiary burdens for plaintiffs bringing vote-dilution claims and improperly required them to disentangle race from partisan politics. According to Kagan, the decision “makes a nullity of Section 2” and “threatens a half-century’s worth of gains in voting equality.”

I believe the Court has made it nearly impossible for minority voters to successfully challenge discriminatory districts, essentially providing legislators free rein to adopt partisan gerrymanders that deliberately hide racial discrimination under the guise of politics.

What are the possible impacts of this decision on the future of the Voting Rights Act and minority voting and representation?

  1. Reduction of Minority Representation: Majority-minority districts have historically been the primary legal mechanism to ensure that communities of color are proportionally represented in Congress and state assemblies. By striking down such maps, the decision could directly threaten the diversity of elected bodies nationwide.
  2. Weaponization of Partisan Gerrymandering: The ruling could effectively permit states to use partisan interests as a shield to draw discriminatory voting maps. By reframing racial exclusion as ordinary political conflict, it becomes much harder for marginalized communities to prove that a map was drawn with discriminatory intent.[3]
  3. Loss of Political Power: When minority communities are broken up and spread across multiple districts (a process called “cracking”), their voting influence may be diminished. As a result, they could be less likely to elect candidates of their choice who understand their unique needs, hindering progress on localized issues like healthcare access and educational equity.

I conclude with a reflection on Justice Samuel Alito’s statement in the majority opinion that, in racial gerrymandering cases, “race and politics must be disentangled.” My question is, in a world as imperfect as ours, with the current political climate, can race and politics ever be disentangled? I know my answer and hope it will change in the future. I will let you answer that question for yourself.

[1] Louisiana v. Callais citation is to the slip opinion

[2] Sources: The Wall Street Journal, SCOTUSblog, Cornell Law School, FairVote, and Oyez

[3] We have seen this even before this decision with a lot of states, for partisan purposes, now doing mid-term redistricting through their legislatures or ballot initiatives.

Richard “Rich” Hahn, ACP, is employed by TechOp Solutions International as a Contract Paralegal and works as a Jr. Freedom of Information Analyst for a federal government agency. Rich is a member of NALA’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) Committee, a former Affiliated Associations Secretary (2023-24), and a former At Large Director on the NALA Board (2019-23). He serves as the NALA Liaison for the Commonwealth of Virginia Paralegal Association (CVPA).

icon Categories