 |
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill speaks with reporters in New Orleans on January 1, 2025.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill arrived at the Supreme Court just before 10 a.m. on January 9 and settled into a seat in the gallery of the stately, column-lined courtroom. Minutes later, when U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer — the Trump administration’s chief advocate before the court — walked in, he crossed the room to greet her warmly.
Murrill was awaiting a ruling in a redistricting dispute that could roll back protections for Black and Latino voters under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. The outcome could also bolster Republican prospects in the U.S. House this year.
Louisiana, supported by the Trump administration and several other GOP-led states, has urged the justices to act swiftly ahead of the midterm elections. The state asked for a decision by early January as it seeks to replace its current congressional map — which includes two court-ordered majority-Black districts — with a new map for this year’s contests.
But shortly after the justices took the bench that day, the gavel came down with no ruling in Louisiana v. Callais. None has followed since.
Speculation has intensified about the case and its potential impact on voters — and on control of the U.S. House, where Republicans hold a narrow majority. (The justices said Friday that additional opinions will be released later this month.)
At issue is Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars racial discrimination in voting, and the remedy courts have frequently ordered when they determine that district maps dilute the voting strength of Black or Hispanic communities. Those court-mandated “majority-minority districts” are designed to ensure those voters have a meaningful opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
States are watching closely for a ruling, with some hoping it will lift prior court mandates and allow them to redraw maps ahead of November’s midterms. But with each passing week, the window to act narrows. In Louisiana — where primary deadlines were delayed last year in anticipation of a potential Supreme Court decision — key deadlines are fast approaching.
Whatever the outcome this election cycle, the court’s eventual decision is expected to grant states greater flexibility heading into 2028 and beyond. Over the past two decades, the
conservative majority has steadily scaled back the Voting Rights Act’s race-based remedies and given greater deference to state legislatures.
So far, the court’s handling of the Louisiana case indicates the majority may make it harder to pursue claims under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act — the key question is by how much. In the most extreme scenario, the court could strike down Section 2’s protections for minorities in redistricting entirely.
After an initial round of oral arguments, the justices unexpectedly scheduled a second hearing in Louisiana v. Callais, expanding their review of the Voting Rights Act. That second session, held last October, suggested the court is poised to further narrow the law’s safeguards — a statute long viewed as a cornerstone of the nation’s civil rights legacy. The VRA was enacted in response to the March 7, 1965 “Bloody Sunday” attack on marchers crossing Alabama’s Edmund Pettus Bridge.
Still, the court’s majority may be more likely to adopt the Trump administration’s approach of limiting Section 2 coverage rather than fully dismantling the provision intended to prevent racial discrimination. Even a partial rollback, however, could reduce Black representation in elected office.