Louisiana v. Callais

Issues

Did the Louisiana State Legislature violate the Equal Protection Clause by implementing congressional district map proposal SB8?

Oral argument:
March 24, 2025
Court below:
United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana

This case asks whether the Louisiana State Legislature primarily considered race when drawing congressional district map SB8, and whether SB8 violates the Equal Protection Clause. Louisiana asserts that the creation of the second majority-Black district was not motivated by race but was instead a response to a court order. Louisiana maintains that SB8 was necessary to comply with the Voting Rights Act (VRA), which Louisiana asserts is a compelling interest, and that therefore Louisiana did not violate the Equal Protection Clause. Louisiana also argues that Respondent Phillip Callais and other Louisiana residents who joined him in the litigation lack standing because they have not been personally harmed by racial discrimination in redistricting. Callais, on the other hand, argues that SB8 goes beyond what is necessary to comply with the VRA and fails to follow traditional districting principles, as SB8 combines geographically dispersed Black communities into an irregularly shaped district. This case raises significant issues about racial discrimination in redistricting, the responsibilities of elected officials to their constituents, and the relationship between the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

(1) Whether the majority of the three-judge district court in this case erred in finding that race predominated in the Louisiana legislature’s enactment of SB8; (2) whether the majority erred in finding that SB8 fails strict scrutiny; (3) whether the majority erred in subjecting SB8 to the preconditions specified in Thornburg v. Gingles ; and (4) whether this action is non-justiciable.

Facts

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (“the VRA”) and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (“the Equal Protection Clause”) both address discrimination . § 2 of the VRA prohibits states from implementing voting policies that negatively affect the ability of American citizens to vote “on account of race or color.” The Equal Protection Clause requires that states provide individuals within their jurisdictions with “the equal protection of the laws,” which has been interpreted as prohibiting states from considering race in legislation and government policy without a compelling governmental interest .

In 2020, Louisiana began the process of redrawing its congressional districts. In March 2022, the Louisiana State Legislature (“the Legislature”) enacted House Bill 1 (“HB1”), creating a new congressional map with one majority-Black district. A group of plaintiffs , led by Press Robinson (collectively “Robinson”), filed a lawsuit against Louisiana asserting that HB1 unfairly packed Black voters into the majority-Black district, thereby weakening Black voting power and violating the VRA. In Robinson v. Louisiana , a district court and two panels of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit sided with Robinson, and the Fifth Circuit ordered the Legislature to draw a new map that would not weaken Black voting power in order to remedy the probable VRA violation.

In January 2024, the Legislature passed Senate Bill 8 (“SB8”). SB8 created a congressional map with two majority-Black districts, including District 6, an irregularly shaped district stretching across most of Louisiana. Phillip Callais, a District 6 resident, along with other Louisianians (collectively “Callais”) subsequently filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana against the Secretary of State Nancy Landry and the State of Louisiana (collectively “Louisiana”), asserting that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause and that the Legislature had intentionally discriminated against voters based on race when creating SB8. The Robinson plaintiffs intervened in this case to support SB8.

The district court held that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause because the Legislature had divided voters into districts primarily based on race in a way that did not pass strict scrutiny review . The district court found that race predominated the Legislature’s considerations in drafting SB8 because the Legislature had ignored traditional redistricting rules, like keeping districts compact and respecting communities, when grouping voters by race. The district court also cited legislators’ statements admitting their goal was to create a second majority-Black district, interpreting those statements to mean that race was their primary motivation.

The district court also held that SB8 was not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling governmental interest, applying the Supreme Court’s test from Thornburg v. Gingles . The district court interpreted Gingles to only allow new majority-Black districts to be made where, among other factors, the Black population is geographically compact, and only if the newly created district adheres to traditional districting rules. The district court found that Louisiana's Black population was too spread out to satisfy the Gingles test, and that the second majority-Black district in SB8 violated traditional districting rules.

On July 30, 2024, Louisiana and the Robinson plaintiffs each petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States to hear their cases. On November 4, 2024, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to both parties and consolidated their cases .

Analysis

LEGISLATIVE INTENT

Louisiana argues that its legislature was not predominately motivated by race, but instead by the Fifth Circuit’s mandate from Robinson . Louisiana contends that any racial intent should be attributed to the Robinson courts because the Robinson courts compelled the legislature to create a second majority-Black district. Louisiana and Robinson argue the primary factor motivating SB8 was protecting the seats of Republican incumbents . Robinson highlight Senator Womack ’s statement that SB8 was the only map that achieved all of the Legislature’s goals, with protecting incumbents as the primary goal and race as only a secondary consideration. Louisiana observes that the Legislature rejected district maps where District 6 was more regularly shaped because those maps did not preserve positions for Representatives Mike Johnson and Julia Letlow .

Louisiana and Robinson argue that the Court’s decision in Alexander v. South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP obligates courts to resolve close questions in the favor of legislatures when evidence supports multiple motives, and that the district court wrongly ignored Alexander by assuming race solely predominated. Robinson also contend that the district court wrongly ignored the Court’s decision in Bush v. Vera , where the Court held that creating a majority-minority district alone does not prove racial predominance. Louisiana also argues that Alexander requires plaintiffs to present an alternative map that achieves both the VRA compliance and incumbency protection goals, and that Callais’ failure to do so is fatal.

Callais argues that the legislature was predominately motivated by race, interpreting Alexander as establishing that race predominates impermissibly when race becomes the non-negotiable factor in drawing a congressional map. Callais contends that the Legislature cannot fully shift blame to the courts because the Robinson courts never explicitly required the creation of a second majority-Black district. Callais highlights trial testimony from several legislators stating that race took precedence over protecting Republican incumbents, as well as admissions from SB8’s sponsors that their goal was to create a second majority-Black district. In response to Louisiana’s arguments that political motives drove the map, Callais contend that the Legislature’s first priority was creating another majority-Black district, with incumbent protection only considered afterwards. Callais also assert that SB8 is contrary to the Republican-run legislature’s own political interests because SB8 sacrificed a formerly Republican district to create a second majority-Black district, which Callais claims is further evidence that protecting incumbents was not the predominant motive.

Callais argues that courts are not obligated to decide in favor of legislatures when there is overwhelming evidence of racial predominance, including direct testimony from legislators. Callais argues that the irregular shape of SB8’s second majority-Black district indicates that race was the predominant factor in SB8’s creation. Callais highlights Louisiana's dispersed Black population, making race the only way to create a second majority-Black district. Callais further contends that Alexander does not require plaintiffs to present an alternative congressional map in all cases. Callais claims that an alternative map requirement only applies when plaintiffs need to show that politics, rather than race, drove districting decisions; Callais argues that since the district court found that race was the controlling factor, an alternative map is unnecessary.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONCERNS

Even if the Court finds race predominates, Louisiana argues that SB8 is still constitutional because SB8 is narrowly tailored to advance a compelling interest . Louisiana contends that its legislature had a compelling interest in complying with the VRA, as the Robinson courts found that Louisiana likely needed to create a second majority-Black district to not violate the VRA. Louisiana highlights that the Court has long assumed that VRA compliance is a compelling interest. Robinson argues that there is not a stronger reason for considering race in redistricting than to avoid creating an illegal district map that would weaken the voting power of a minority group.

Louisiana argues that SB8 is narrowly tailored because SB8 imitates the Robinson plaintiffs’ proposed congressional maps, modified only to protect the seats of Republican incumbents. Louisiana emphasizes Supreme Court precedent indicating that districts remedying VRA violations do not need perfect compactness or regular shape. Louisiana also contends that the district court wrongly subjected Louisiana to the Gingles test because Supreme Court precedent only requires “good reasons” to believe the Gingles test was passed. Louisiana asserts that the good reason to believe the Gingles test was met was that the Robinson courts had already applied the Gingles test and found a second majority-Black district was likely required, so no further analysis was necessary. Robinson adds that this “good reasons” standard was intended to give states broad discretion in drawing districts to comply with the VRA.

Callais argues there is no compelling interest justifying SB8’s use of race because the Court has never held that VRA compliance is a compelling interest. Callais contends that even if VRA compliance is a compelling interest, the Court has never allowed it to be indefinitely compelling. Callais argues that since VRA violations do not last forever, courts must apply the Gingles test on a case-by-case basis to determine whether there is a VRA violation, as the district court did here. Callais also asserts that Louisiana’s actual purpose was not to comply with the VRA, but to avoid having to accept a Fifth Circuit-created district map, which is not a compelling interest . Callais claims that the Legislature has repeatedly disavowed that the VRA required the creation of a second majority-Black district, which undercuts Louisiana’s claim that VRA compliance was the Legislature’s predominant motivation.

Callais argues that SB8 is not narrowly tailored because Louisiana failed to show a “strong basis in evidence” that the VRA required a second majority-Black district. Callais asserts that SB8 fails the Gingles test because SB8 subordinates traditional districting rules far beyond what is reasonably necessary for VRA compliance. Callais further emphasizes the Robinson courts essentially rejected a similar district map to SB8 as a “nonsensical configuration,” undermining any claim that SB8 is narrowly tailored to remedy a VRA violation. Callais also contends that the “good reasons” standard does not allow a state to violate traditional principles of redistricting.

PROCEDURAL CONSIDERATIONS

Louisiana argues that Callais does not have standing because Callais cannot show they are personally harmed by SB8 or the Legislature’s motives behind creating SB8. Louisiana contends that only people personally harmed by racial discrimination can bring claims under the Equal Protection Clause, and since none of the Callais plaintiffs are Black, they cannot claim their rights were violated due to discrimination against Black voters. Louisiana argues that United States v. Hays should be overruled because Hays would allow any Louisiana resident to challenge any Louisianian congressional map based on race. Louisiana also argues that Hays assumes that any voter in a challenged district was placed in that district due to his race, which offends a color-blind Constitution .

Louisiana argues that the conflict between the VRA and the Equal Protection Clause leaves states with no clear legal standard to follow. Citing Justice Thomas from several past cases , Louisiana contends that these types of cases raise questions courts cannot resolve and should instead be left to state legislatures. Therefore, Louisiana urge the Court to dismiss this case and leave these issues to the state.

Callais claims to have standing because many of the plaintiffs who joined in his lawsuit live in the second majority-Black district created by SB8. Citing Hays , Callais argues that anyone living in a challenged district can claim to have been personally harmed by racial discrimination, even if that person is not a member of the race being discriminated against. Callais contends that his claim to having been personally harmed by racial discrimination comes from the legislature using race as the predominant motivation in districting, which Callais argue pressures representatives to govern based on racial stereotypes, harming both Black and non-Black voters. Callais dismisses Louisiana's contention that Hays gives every voter standing, stating that Hays already limits who can sue to those who live in the district at issue.

Callais highlights Supreme Court precedent establishing that courts have the authority and capability to review racial gerrymandering claims under the Fourteenth Amendment. Callais points to cases as far back as the 1960s, including Gomillion v. Lightfoot , as examples of the Court recognizing courts’ ability to review districting claims.

Discussion

RACIAL DISCRIMINATION

Representatives Troy Carter and others (“Representatives”), in support of Louisiana and Robinson, argue that creating districts with Black majorities provides representation to historically disenfranchised communities. Additionally, Representatives contend that creating these districts advances interracial communication and integration. Louisiana maintains that not overturning the Hays decision would encourage racial stereotyping by requiring courts to assume that racial groups vote as a monolith. The National Congress of American Indians (“NCAI”) contends that map drawers are always aware of race, and that banning racial considerations would not create colorblind maps but instead allow discriminatory districting maps to persist. The NCAI asserts that basing district maps on factors besides race would specifically harm Native Americans, who often live spread across different counties.

Project on Fair Representation (“PFR”), in support of Callais, counters that race-based laws requiring voters to be separated by race perpetuate discrimination. PFR states that race-based laws assume people of the same race think uniformly, an idea which promotes concepts of racial discrimination. Judicial Watch, Inc. and Allied Educational Foundation (“Judicial Watch & AEF”) argue that racial separation via redistricting is a form of racial segregation. Callais argues that § 2 of the VRA has previously been abused to create racial quotas and elevate specific groups over others. According to Callais, allowing legislators to “pass” on future litigation encourages them to continue using harmful racial stereotypes when creating district maps.

REPRESENTING CONSTITUENT INTERESTS

Representatives argue that if the Court upholds the district court’s decision, Louisiana may not have a single majority-Black district, which would in turn significantly reduce Black Louisianians’ political power. Representatives highlight that white supremacists have attempted to deny Black residents their right to vote on several occasions in Louisiana’s history, and that there have only been a few Black representatives for Louisiana in the past. Furthermore, Representatives maintain that an electoral district in which the majority of the constituents in the district are racial minorities encourages bipartisanship by causing the elected leaders to reach across the aisle and achieve their constituents’ goals.

Judicial Watch & AEF counter that racial gerrymandering to create majority-Black districts undermines democracy by causing representatives to ignore the desires of their constituents. Judicial Watch & AEF contend that racial gerrymandering will encourage representatives to believe that their obligations are to the racial group that has a majority in a district, rather than to all of their constituents. The National Republican Congressional Congress adds that voters may be confused if the Court reverses the district court’s decision ahead of Louisiana's elections in 2025, which in turn could chill voter turnout. Furthermore, Callais asserts that racially gerrymandered districts will create elected representatives who prioritize the needs of a specific group, Black voters, over the needs of other voters.

Conclusion


Abigail Breneisen and Sarah Chang

Nicholas Sola

Additional Resources