The question
Whether Louisiana's SB8 congressional map, drawn with a second majority-minority district, is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require the additional district.
Louisiana v. Callais
What the Court decided
The Court held that Louisiana's SB8 map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, the State had no compelling interest to justify its use of race in drawing the map. The Court also held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as properly construed, can itself be a compelling interest that satisfies strict scrutiny, but that interest did not apply here.
How the justices split
6-3The Court's opinion
Alito, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, which requires a compelling interest. Compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as properly construed, can provide such an interest. A proper interpretation of Section 2 requires examining the statutory text to understand what it demands when drawing legislative districts. Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's use of race in creating SB8, so the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Concurring
Thomas, joined by Gorsuch
Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Gorsuch, stating additional views beyond the reasoning of the Court's opinion.
Dissenting
Kagan, joined by Sotomayor, Jackson
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson, disagreeing with the Court's conclusion that SB8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
The Court held that Louisiana's SB8 map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that no compelling interest justified the State's use of race because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, as properly construed, can provide a compelling interest that satisfies strict scrutiny.
Source: syllabus, Held
Alito delivered the opinion of the Court, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett.
Source: syllabus, lineup
Kagan filed a dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor and Jackson.
Source: syllabus, lineup