Supreme Court considers whether Louisiana could redraw congressional map to comply with earlier federal rulings

Summary

At oral argument in the consolidated case arising from Robinson, justices pressed Louisiana on whether two prior federal-court findings that a second majority‑Black district was likely required gave the State a sufficient "good reason" to enact a politically shaped remedial district that opponents call a racial gerrymander.

The Supreme Court heard argument in case No. 24109, Louisiana v. Veil (consolidated), over Louisiana’s enacted congressional map and whether the state’s creation of a second majority‑Black district (District 6) violated the Equal Protection Clause.

Counsel for Louisiana told the justices the state drew District 6 because two Article III courts had concluded the Voting Rights Act (VRA) likely required a second majority‑Black district and that the State therefore had a legally reasonable basis to remedy the asserted Section 2 violation. “Louisiana would rather not be here. We didn't want to be in the emergency docket in 2022. We didn't want to be on the emergency docket in 2024,” counsel said, adding that because of the prior decisions “we drew our own map to protect them.” Counsel said that the district court erred by (1) not resolving standing, (2) treating compliance with the VRA as automatically establishing racial predominance, and (3) failing to treat the Robinson decisions as part of the “good reasons” inquiry the Court’s precedent requires.

Opposing counsel argued the record does not support automatic…

Supreme Court considers whether Louisiana could redraw congressional map to comply with earlier federal rulings

Summary

Subscribe to keep reading