BlogLine

Majority-Minority districts may be in jeopardy after Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais

5/8/26

By: William Buechner Jr.

The Supreme Court issued last week its long-anticipated redistricting decision in Louisiana v. Callais, — S. Ct. —, 2026 WL 1153054 (April 29, 2026). The Court did not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act (“VRA”) as unconstitutional, as many observers predicted. However, the Court’s 6-3 decision authored by Justice Alito substantially modified the Court’s interpretation of the VRA to limit it to prohibiting district lines that are the product of intentional race discrimination, as opposed to just having a disadvantageous effect on election outcomes for candidates preferred by minority voters. The Court also did not overrule the framework for analyzing VRA claims set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), but the Court modified the Gingles framework substantially. The practical effect of the Court’s ruling is that it will be much harder for a plaintiff to prevail on a VRA challenge to existing district lines and much harder to defend majority-minority districts against racial gerrymandering claims. It will also likely encourage some states to eliminate existing majority-minority districts through legislative action.

Callais arose out of a convoluted congressional redistricting dispute in Louisiana following the 2020 census. The state legislature adopted a redistricting map that maintained one majority black district among its six congressional districts. A group of plaintiffs (the Robinson plaintiffs) filed suit asserting that the state’s failure to adopt a create a second majority black congressional district violated the VRA. A federal district court granted a preliminary injunction and held that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on this claim, and the Fifth Circuit affirmed this ruling. Faced with this preliminary injunction, the state legislature adopted another congressional map that included a second majority black district. In order to protect three powerful Republican incumbent House members, include House Speaker Mike Johnson and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, the Republican-controlled legislature created a second majority black district that stretched from Baton Rouge and Lafayette to Shreveport in the far northwest part of the state — approximately 250 miles away. A second group of plaintiffs (the Callais plaintiffs)  challenged the remedial map as a racial gerrymander in a different district court, and a three-judge district court panel agreed and granted a preliminary injunction against the new remedial congressional map. The state and the Robinson plaintiffs (who had intervened) filed an appeal to the Supreme Court.

The parties briefed and argued the case in the last term, but the Court ordered re-briefing and re-argument during this term and instructed the parties to address whether compliance with the VRA provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race to draw district lines. As Callais noted, the Court has assumed that the answer to this question was yes in a number of opinions spanning more than 30 years. Answering this lingering question, the Court in Callais held that compliance with the VRA, as properly understood, may provide a compelling state interest that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing voting districts. Callais, 2026 WL 1153054, at *4.

A central theme of the Court’s opinion is that drawing district lines to meet partisan goals is as legitimate as any other nonracial goals, such as compactness, contiguity, not splitting political subdivisions and similar recognized and legitimate redistricting goals, and that the burden is on the plaintiff to disentangle race from partisan goals.  This analysis is based substantially on Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U.S. 1 (2024), which held that district lines that can be explained by race or partisan goals will be deemed to be the product of political goals (and thus lawful), unless the plaintiff can prove that the state could have met the same political goals with district lines showing more racial balance. Accordingly, Callais explained that, although the text of VRA states that a violation occurs if minority voters have less opportunity than nonminority voters to elect the candidates of their choice, this assessment must take into account the overall voting preferences in that district that are the product of the state’s permissible districting criteria, including partisan makeup. Thus, for example, if a Republican voter lives in a district where most voters prefer Democratic candidates, the chances of a Republican voter being able to elect the candidate of his or her choice will be low. Callais, 2026 WL 1153054, at *11-12. The Court also emphasized that Congress passed the VRA pursuant to its authority to enforce the Fifteenth Amendment, and the Fifteenth Amendment only prohibits intentional race discrimination. Id. at *12.

The Court then modified the Gingles test to reflect its revised interpretation of the VRA. The first prong requires a plaintiff to show that minority voters are sufficiently numerous and compact to constitute a majority in a reasonably configured district. Plaintiffs used to be able to satisfy this prong by presenting illustrative maps showing that such districts could be drawn, even if the plaintiffs used race as the determining criteria for such illustrative maps. The Court held that plaintiffs may not do so. Instead, such illustrative maps must take into account all of the state’s stated legitimate goals, including political ones. Id. at *15. The Court then held that, under the second Gingles prong (racially polarizing voting by the majority and the minority groups) and third Gingles prong (the majority racial group consistently outvotes the minority racial group), the plaintiff must provide an analysis that controls for party affiliation. “In other words, they must show that voters engage in racial bloc voting that cannot be explained by partisan affiliation.” Id. Finally, as to the “totality of the circumstances” prong of the Gingles analysis, the Court held that the focus must be on evidence of present-day intent to discriminate on the basis of race, not past discrimination or the alleged “present effects” of past discrimination. Id. at *16.

Applying this test to the case before it, the Court held that the second majority black Congressional district was drawn with a racial purpose – to draw a district that had more than 50% black voters in order to comply with the prior court’s ruling that a second majority black district likely was necessary to comply with the VRA. Id at *17.  The Court then held that compliance with the VRA did not provide a compelling state interest that justified the race-based district because the VRA (when properly understood), did not require the creation of a second majority-black district. Id. Applying the revised Gingles test, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to provide an illustrative map that satisfied all of the state’s stated nonracial goals, including the protection of a specific incumbent House member who would have been condemned to certain electoral defeat under the plaintiffs’ illustrative map. Id. The Court held that the plaintiffs did not satisfy the second or third Gingles prongs because they did not control for partisan preferences. Id. Finally, the Court held that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the “totality of the circumstances” prong because they failed to disentangle race from politics and focused on the state’s past history of race discrimination rather than on current conditions. Id. at *17-18.

Finally, responding to the dissent, the Court reiterated that its holding was not contrary to Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1 (2023), which affirmed a district court’s ruling that the VRA required Alabama to create a second majority-black congressional district. The Court explained that Allen involved a VRA claim, not a racial gerrymandering claim under the Fourteenth Amendment, and that the state in Allen did not defend its congressional redistricting map on the ground that it was created to advance partisan goals. Callais, 2026 WL 1153054, at *16.

The implications of Callais could be substantial both in the near future and for many years to come. The governor of Louisiana has already suspended its primaries for congressional elections scheduled for May 16, 2026 in order to redraw its congressional districts for use in the 2026 election cycle. The Florida legislature very recently enacted a new congressional redistricting map and will likely rely on Callais to defend it against claims that the new redistricting map violates the state constitution. Other (mainly conservative) states are considering whether to redraw their district lines in light of Callais for use in the 2026 election cycle.

Beyond legislative action, Callais likely will also lead to litigation challenging majority-minority districts. There are an estimated 30 to 40 majority-minority congressional districts nationwide that were drawn to comply with the VRA. There are numerous more majority-minority districts drawn for state legislative seats in order to comply with the VRA. These majority-minority district will be vulnerable to constitutional attack as unlawfully racial gerrymanders that cannot be justified on the ground that they are necessary to comply with the VRA.

For more information on this topic contact William Buechner Jr. at bill.buechner@fmglaw.com or your local FMG attorney.

Information conveyed herein should not be construed as legal advice or represent any specific or binding policy or procedure of any organization. Information provided is for educational purposes only. These materials are written in a general format and not intended to be advice applicable to any specific circumstance. Legal opinions may vary when based on subtle factual distinctions. All rights reserved. No part of this presentation may be reproduced, published or posted without the written permission of Freeman Mathis & Gary, LLP.