The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments over Louisiana’s congressional map, which challengers say relied too much on race when its district lines were drawn in violation of federal law.
The challengers, a group of non-Black voters, dispute how the state drew district lines to give Black voters the majority in two of Louisiana’s six congressional districts.
One district at issue stretches across the state, which drew remarks from Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Neil M. Gorsuch.
“Louisiana chose a snake … squiggling from one side of the state to another,” said Justice Gorsuch, a Trump appointee.
“Did it have a good reason to draw this district?” he said. “Geographically, it is wildly different.”
“You think the drawing of this district was not predominantly drawn on race?” said Justice Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee.
Under the map, which was used during the 2024 elections, Louisiana has two Democrats and four Republicans in its congressional delegation. Before the new map, there was one Democratic and five GOP lawmakers.
The dispute gives the justices a chance to say just how much race can be used as a factor when legislators draw district lines to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
Legislative maps are typically redrawn every 10 years to reflect population changes noted in the country’s decennial census.
Louisiana’s legal battle over its congressional maps has been ongoing for more than two years. Lower courts have blocked two of the state’s maps, and the high court has had to intervene.
The first was drawn in 2022 following the 2020 census and did not include a second majority-Black district. It was challenged by civil rights groups.
Louisiana’s current case comes after the Supreme Court ruled in 2023 that Alabama’s congressional map was deficient in having only a single majority-Black district among its seven U.S. House seats.
Alabama is about 27% Black. Louisiana is about 34% Black.
Following the high court’s Alabama decision, Louisiana redrew its map to add a second majority-Black district.
That map was challenged by non-Black voters, and a lower court ruled that race was too much of a factor and struck down the map. But the Supreme Court blocked that ruling and allowed the contested map to be used during the 2024 elections.
Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga said Monday that the state complied with the lower court’s order and drew a new map with intentions to protect incumbents, such as House Speaker Mike Johnson.
“The larger picture here is important because in an election year, we faced the prospect of a court-drawn map,” Mr. Aguiñaga said, suggesting a court-mandated map would endanger incumbents. “We drew our own map to protect them. This court’s breathing room precedents allow that decision.”
“We would rather not be back at the podium this fall defending a new map,” he added. “We operated in that breathing room in drawing District 6.”
Democratic appointees on the bench appeared open to how Louisiana tried to draw its map in a way to follow the lower court’s guidance by ensuring another majority Black district.
“What you’ve done is tie-in communities of interest in different ways,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, an Obama appointee. She suggested that it complies with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibits racial discrimination against the right to vote.
“We say all the time states have to have breathing room,” said Justice Elena Kagan, an Obama appointee. “This state used its breathing room.”
But those challenging the map insist that it focuses too heavily on race and that the state drew a second majority-Black district in a way that snakes across the state. They complain that the state conducted “race-based sorting.”
Edward Greim, a lawyer representing the non-Black voters, said that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is not fulfilling its original aim of protecting Black voters against lawmakers drawing discriminatory district lines.
“Section 2 is no longer performing the function it was assigned,” Mr. Greim told the court. “Now, why are we seeing so many Section 2 cases? As voters are becoming more integrated, why are we suddenly finding new Section 2 cases everywhere? I think that is a problem.”
The case is Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais. A decision is expected by the end of June.
