Summary
This document is a dissenting opinion by Justice Thomas in Louisiana v. Callais, addressing the Supreme Court's decision to restore consolidated appeals concerning Louisiana's congressional redistricting map for reargument. The dissent argues that the Court should promptly resolve the tension between Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause regarding race-based districting. Justice Thomas contends that current jurisprudence creates an unworkable conflict and advocates for a definitive ruling that constitutional equal protection principles override statutory mandates for proportional racial representation.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Louisiana's congressional redistricting map, including its second majority-Black district, violated the Equal Protection Clause as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
- Whether the Supreme Court should resolve the constitutional challenge in the current Term rather than restore the consolidated cases to the calendar for reargument.
- Whether the Supreme Court's interpretation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act in Allen v. Milligan is inconsistent with the Equal Protection Clause.
Holdings
- The Court restored the consolidated cases to its calendar for reargument and deferred further proceedings pending an order scheduling argument and identifying any additional questions for supplemental briefing.
- Justice Thomas's dissent would hold that the Constitution controls whenever the Court's interpretation of § 2 conflicts with the Equal Protection Clause, and would reject or substantially reassess the interpretation of § 2 articulated in Allen v. Milligan.
Key quotations
“These cases are restored to the calendar for reargument. In due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing.” (at 1)
“Under the Milligan Court’s construction of the statute, it is difficult to see how §2 imposes any real barrier to a district court providing a race-based remedy.” (at 4)
“These cases put the Court to a choice: It may permit patent racial gerrymandering under the auspices of §2 compliance, or it may admit that, as the Court has construed the statute, a violation of §2 is insufficient to justify a race-based remedy.” (at 6)
Factual background
Louisiana enacted Senate Bill 8 after a district court had ordered the creation of an additional majority-Black congressional district to address alleged vote dilution under § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. SB8 created two majority-Black districts, compared with one under the prior map, and one of the new districts extended approximately 250 miles across the State while connecting predominantly Black population pockets in several metropolitan areas. Plaintiffs alleged that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, and the three-judge district court agreed.
Procedural history
The plaintiffs challenged Louisiana Senate Bill 8, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge district court concluded that the map violated the Equal Protection Clause and granted a preliminary injunction. Louisiana and intervenor-appellants appealed directly to the Supreme Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1253. After briefing and oral argument, the Supreme Court restored the cases to its calendar for reargument and stated that it would later schedule argument and identify any additional questions for supplemental briefing.
Remand instructions
The Court restored the cases to the calendar for reargument. It directed that a later order would schedule argument and specify any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing; the source does not state a remand to the lower court.