The Supreme Court announced this on Monday It would be a strange debate to hear Two federal courts differ on how to fix Louisiana’s racially gerrymandered congressional maps. Under existing law, one of these courts was clearly right and the other clearly wrong. But this Supreme Court is often hostile to voting rights plaintiffs, so there is some risk that justices could change the law, allowing more racial gerrymanders.
The court will consider this dispute in a pair of consolidated cases, known as Louisiana v. Calais And Robinson v. Kalis.
In June 2022, Obama-appointed Chief Judge Shelley Dick ruled in a federal court in Louisiana that the state’s congressional maps were An illegal racial gerrymander. Under the invalid map, black voters formed a majority in one of the state’s six congressional districts despite making up about a third of Louisiana’s population.
Dick ruled that “the appropriate remedy in this context is a remedial congressional redistricting plan that includes an additional majority-black congressional district”—meaning that Louisiana would have to draw a new map that included at least two majority-black districts. Known as Dick’s case Robinson v. ArdoinAnd Dick is a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana.
A ton of litigation followed Dick’s decision, including a brief trip to the Supreme Court, but Louisiana’s efforts to appeal Dick’s ruling ultimately failed. After the Fifth Circuit, a federal appeals court overseeing Louisiana, rejected an attempt to toss Dick’s ruling, the state decided to give up the fight and comply with his order. The state legislature passed a new map that includes two black-majority districts.
But then an entirely different federal trial court, the Western District of Louisiana, decided to insert itself into the dispute. A new set of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in the Western District claiming the new maps are unconstitutional This case, which was known as Calais v . Landry When it was before the trial court, a three-judge panel was mandated. Two of those judges — appointed by former President Donald Trump — agreed with the new plaintiffs that the state’s new maps are unconstitutional.
Louisiana, in other words, is now subject to two competing court orders. The first, from Judge Dick, prohibits it from using old maps. The second, from two Trump judges in the Western District, barred the state from using new maps drawn up to comply with Dick’s order.
Last May, in the judgment of the Supreme Court, the state party Dr May use its new map in 2024 electionsIn order to temporarily delay the resolution of this conflict. But the long-term situation is clearly unsustainable. Louisiana needs to be able to draw some sort of congressional map. And it needs to know what rules govern how to draw those maps.
That’s not possible unless two completely separate courts, each of which apparently has wildly different views on how to resolve racial gerrymandering disputes, are allowed to issue competing court orders.
So what does the law actually say about Louisiana racial gerrymandering?
Under existing law — including the recent Roberts Supreme Court decision Allen v. Milligan (2023) — Dick is clearly right about what should happen to the Louisiana map, and Trump’s two judges are clearly wrong. among other things, Milligan Almost identical to Alabama involved a racial gerrymandering dispute, and the Supreme Court ordered Alabama to draw a second black congressional district in that case.
But this Supreme Court, with its 6-3 Republican supermajority, is often hostile to suffrage claims — and it is especially hostile to claims brought under the Voting Rights Act, the law on which Dick relied for his decision. So, when the correct result Kalis Clearly under existing law, there is always a risk that this Court will abandon that law.
in MilliganAlabama effectively asked the Supreme Court to abandon the legal framework governing racial gerrymandering cases brought under the Voting Rights Act, which the court first announced. Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), and replace it with a new test that would provide the law’s protection against racial gerrymandering.
In a 5-4 decision, the court rejected Alabama’s request, instead holding that a lower court decision to strike down Alabama’s racially discriminatory maps “faithfully applied our precedent.” D Gingles framework, which the Court reaffirmed Milligancomplicated But it is primarily required Milligan Plaintiffs sought to show that it was possible to draw two geographically “compact” black-majority districts in Alabama, and that the state’s black and white voters tended to vote in separate blocs.
D Arduino The case — which Judge Dick heard — is similar in all relevant respects Milligan. That’s what Louisiana lawyers have previously told the Supreme Court Arduino “presents the same question“As decided Milligan. In its ruling against Louisiana, the Fifth Circuit concluded that “most of the state’s arguments here were addressed and rejected by the Supreme Court. Milligan“
So really this debate should have ended. Lawyers who wanted to leave the court Gingles And legalize the kind of racial gerrymanders initially pulled by state legislatures in Alabama and Louisiana, and a majority of justices rejected those arguments in 2023. This perhaps explains why, after Louisiana lost its appeal in the Fifth Circuit, it decided to drop the fight and voluntarily draw new maps.
So how on earth is the western district getting involved?
To understand how a second federal court invalidated the maps invalidating Louisiana’s compliance with Judge Dick’s order, it’s important to understand some of the tensions that have long existed in federal voting rights law.
D 14th Amendment Generally prohibits all forms of race discrimination. Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the amendment barred the States “Using race as a major factor in drawing district lines unless there is a compelling reason to do so.” At the same time, voting rights laws sometimes require states to draw a minimum number of legislative districts in which an ethnic minority group is in the majority. This principle has been reaffirmed in many cases including Gingles And Milligan.
The tension between these two principles arises because, if a state knows it must draw at least two congressional districts with a black majority, it cannot really accomplish that task regardless of race. The court upheld this tension Cooper v. Harris (2017) that a state can engage in “race-based districting” when it has “a strong base of evidence” to conclude that it must comply with the Voting Rights Act.
under CooperA VRA-compliant map is legal if the state “has ‘good reason’ to believe that it would violate the law if it did not draw race-based district lines.”
So, under CooperThe Western District had no business striking a new map of Louisiana. Louisiana apparently had “good reason” to think it must redraw a map with two black-majority districts because a federal court ordered it to redraw a map with two black-majority districts, and the state’s efforts to appeal that decision failed. . .
Trump has two judges tasked with avoiding this conclusion Kalis The decision basically depends on one line Milligan which states that the Voting Rights Act “has never been required[s] Adopting districts that violate traditional redistricting policies. They argue that the new map, which was also drawn to protect several Republican incumbents, violates the traditional principle that legislative districts should be compact.
But that’s a pretty stressful read Milligan. The Supreme Court, however, held that the VRA does not need As for states drawing ugly districts, it said in the same paragraph that redistricting “is primarily the duty and responsibility of the states, not of the federal courts.” so Milligan no forbidden States cannot draw ugly, invisible districts as long as those districts otherwise comply with voting rights laws.
It is noteworthy that Kalis The Supreme Court falls under mandatory jurisdiction, which means justices are required to hear the case, or at least issue orders to resolve it. So the mere fact that judges will hear what should be a very simple voting rights case doesn’t mean they want to preserve the value of the law for decades.
Still, while legal principles should rule Kalis Crystal clear, it’s always worrisome whenever this unpredictable court takes on a Voting Rights Act case of any kind. in MilliganThe court surprised most Supreme Court-watchers when it voted to leave longstanding protections against racial gerrymandering in place. We will soon find out if there are five justices Milligan The majority actually meant what they said in this case.
