Supreme Court hears arguments in Louisiana redistricting case

WASHINGTON (Gray DC) - Litigation that challenges Louisiana’s newest majority black congressional district reached the Supreme Court on Monday

Both advocates and Louisiana state leaders both argued before the high court Monday, saying that the congressional map they created is legal. A group of self described none-African American voters argued that the state’s map is an illegal racial gerrymander.

“This case is not just about drawing lines. It is about drawing the future. It is about whether the erasure of black voices will be allowed to stand not just in Louisiana, but around the country,” said Alanah Odoms, Executive Director ACLU of Louisiana, outside the court after the arguments.

The case centered on a long and confusing dispute about the state’s congressional voting map and how much state lawmakers should consider race when drawing the map.

The current map includes a new majority black voting district that was added in 2024 after civil rights groups successfully sued the state, when it argued that a 2022 congressional map diluted black voting power because one out of six districts were black majority while a third of the state’s population was African American.

But then the group of non-African American voters sued, saying the new version was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander that violated the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

“Basically, the state predominantly, we would say solely used race, to draw, to force a second black majority district,” said Edward Greim, an attorney for defendants. “It imposed a two district quota on the state.”

The state and civil rights groups are now on the same side arguing to keep the current maps.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill also hopes the court offers a decision that brings about clarity for her state.

“Part of the outcome that we would like to see, regardless of the outcome of this case, is clarity from this court about how to interpret and apply its jurisprudence by the legislatures that are obligated to do this in the first instance,” she said.

The justices appeared to be divided during questioning on Monday about whether or not the state relied too much on race when it drew the new maps.

“The court’s long said that race based remedial action, must have, a logical endpoint must be limited in time, must be a temporary matter,” said Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

“Has the court ever held that race predominates whenever a state draws a district to comply with section two? I thought we suggested the opposite,” said Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

A decision is expected in June.

Copyright 2025 Gray DC. All rights reserved.