On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Louisiana v. Callais, a challenge to the 2024 Louisiana congressional map that brings into conflict the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. This is the second time this case has come before SCOTUS; the justices heard original arguments in March, but did not render a decision during the last term. 

If the end of the 2025 term finds SCOTUS ruling in Louisiana's favor, this case would not only upend how the Voting Rights Act is used but will change the calculus of the redistricting schemes being pushed in California and New York. 

Read More: This Breakdown Shows Just How Catastrophic the Redistricting Battle Could Be for Dems

Supreme Court to Hear Louisiana Redistricting Case - Here's Why the Outcome Could Matter in Missouri

Attorney and former U.S. Senate candidate for California Mark Meuser broke it down well in an X post. 

The post Meuser said, in part:

The Supreme Court could soon change how every congressional map in America is drawn, including California. 

Today the Court hears oral arguments in Callais v. Louisiana, a case that could reshape redistricting for decades. 

Here’s what’s at stake: for years, federal courts have interpreted the Voting Rights Act (VRA) to require states to gerrymander congressional districts so minority groups are virtually guaranteed the ability to elect a representative of their same race. Callais challenges that approach, arguing that the current interpretation of the VRA violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution because it forces states to make race the predominant factor in drawing district lines.

Meuser concluded:

When districts are drawn to guarantee that one party always wins, it shifts power away from the people and toward special interests. It lets political insiders and activist groups pick the politicians who govern us, rather than letting voters choose their representatives. 

If the Court agrees with Callais, the decision could dramatically limit the use of race in redistricting nationwide. That means the gerrymandered maps Gavin Newsom is pushing with Prop 50 could be ruled unconstitutional.

There's much at stake, and this challenge to the Voting Rights Act will expose whether its original intent still serves its purpose or whether it is time to reimagine it. 

Louisiana is not the only state arguing the conflict of interest and unconstitutionality of using the Voting Rights Act as a permanent racial cudgel. Fifteen other states, including Alabama, have filed amicus briefs in support. As RedState reported, Alabama has been dealing with these ping-pong challenges to its local and congressional maps for years.

Dive Deeper: Federal Court Picks Alabama Congressional Map That Carves out Separate Black District 

Alabama's Attorney General Steve Marshall wrote in his amicus brief to the court:

Louisiana’s congressional plan was preliminarily enjoined, so the State enacted a race-based map with a new majority-black district “stretch[ing] some 250 miles” from Shreveport to Baton Rouge. Callais v. Landry, 732 F.Supp.3d 574, 588 (W.D. La. 2024). That second attempt was declared unconstitutional and enjoined. Id. at 582.

Alabama’s congressional plan was preliminarily enjoined too, so the State enacted a new map prioritizing non-racial goals. This second attempt was enjoined for not creating a new majority-black district stretching some 250 miles from Mobile to the Georgia border. Singleton v. Allen, 782 F.Supp.3d 1092 (N.D. Ala. May 8, 2025), appeal pending, No. 25-274 (U.S). The State was even branded intentionally racist for trying to avoid an unconstitutional use of race.

It’s time that this “lose-lose situation” ends. Alexander v. S.C. NAACP, 602 U.S. 1, 65 (2024) (Thomas, J., concurring). No one disputes that “[t]he VRA is the crown jewel of civil rights legislation,” but its “brilliance” can be seen without viewing “dilution” litigation through rose-colored glasses. Robinson.Br.1. There is no “clarity and exactness” in deciding when a map dilutes. Id. There is no “careful crafting” in §2 that “limit[s]” the use of race “to tailored remedies for ongoing race discrimination.” Id. at 47. Perhaps in decades past, the Court could assume that §2 was “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination” in redistricting. SFFA, 600 U.S. at 207. No longer. This unconstrained, opaque, and odious use of race “cannot extend” any further. Allen v. Milligan, 599 U.S. 1, 45 (2023) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring).

When Congress first enacted the law, it rendered benefit for the interests of the Black community. However, the Black community is no longer a monolith, if it ever was. It is multi-faceted, varied, and what concerns one aspect doesn't even pass the radar of the others. If the 2024 election proved anything, it is that representation still matters, but it doesn't necessarily translate to skin color. 

The reason why Trump won over 20 percent of the Black vote, particularly among men, is that he spoke to their community interests (crime and safety) and financial concerns (the economy), not to their race. So, the use of "Black representation" for redistricting challenges is becoming old, hackneyed, and, with each case that wends its way through the courts, disingenuous. These Voting Rights Act challenges against Louisiana and other states follow a model that no longer exists. Yet the attorney for the plaintiff argued before the justices that it really does. White people won't vote for Black candidates, no matter what the party, she contends.

LISTEN:

This is the knee-jerk argument of the Democrats: Implicit bias and systemic racism demand that districts must be drawn according to race. When the issue really is that they have no idea how to actually represent constituents and what they truly want, they only know how to represent their own interests. 

The raft of challenges that keep coming down the pike every time states, particularly Southern ones, redistrict only serve to benefit one party, and it's not Republicans. Washington State Senator Nikki Torres, a Republican, proved this. She wrote about how the Washington state redistricting done in 2021 disenfranchised Hispanics. They limited the Hispanic vote in her district because they didn't like the fact that Torres represented the wrong party.

So while Hispanic voters chose me, I wasn’t the right kind of Hispanic according to Democrats. Why not? My parents were both born in Mexico. They met in America and wanted their kids to achieve the American dream. We worked hard as a family picking eastern Washington crops: cherries, apples, plums, grapes. I unexpectedly became a single mother at 16. But I worked hard to get my GED. I then became the first in my family to earn a college degree, and then an M.B.A.

So, why wasn’t I the right kind of Hispanic for Democrats? Because I am a Republican. Democrats in Washington didn’t use race in redistricting to help our community. They used race to help themselves. 

Therein lies the rub. As long as the Voting Rights Act is going to be used to represent a political party and not community interests, does it hold any validity? Does the Constitution represent non-partisan and racially unbiased voting opportunity or not?

If the outcome is in Louisiana's favor, we already know the potential split: 5-4, 6-3 is the usual breakdown with this court. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson already signaled which way the wind is blowing for her with this mind-numbingly stupid comparison of race to disability.

LISTEN:

Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.

Please help us continue to report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.