LIVE BLOG: SCOTUS Hears Oral Argument in Louisiana Redistricting Case That Could Gut the VRA
- The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing oral argument today in two redistricting cases, consolidated into one, that could block Louisiana’s freshly minted second majority-Black congressional district.
- After years of lawsuits, a federal court ruled Louisiana to create a second majority-Black congressional district in 2023, to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act and give voters fair representation for the first time since the mid-’90s. Read more about Louisiana’s 6th Congressional district here.
- A group of white voters sued over the new district, alleging it created an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and now the state is asking SCOTUS to preserve Louisiana’s 6th District, keeping the state’s map with two majority-Black districts.
Democracy Docket is updating this article in real time. Click refresh for updates.
11:36 a.m. ET:
The state’s final word: As oral argument wrapped up, the state’s lawyer made a simple plea to SCOTUS: “With all due respect, we’d rather not be back at the podium this fall defending a new map against a new challenge,” he said. “And if this court holds otherwise, then respectfully, I don’t know what this Court’s voting cases mean. We ask you to reverse.”
And that wraps up oral argument. Thanks for following along and you can read the full background of this case here.
–Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter, Democracy Docket
11:30 a.m. ET:
Kavanaugh’s Section 2 question: Justice Brett Kavanaugh continued to raise questions about whether Section 2 is time-limited. Republicans are using this as another argument in their effort to strike down Section 2. The state said the Court could see the issue in a lawsuit challenging Louisiana’s legislative districts. Learn more about Republicans’ temporal argument here.
–Ashley Cleaves, Legal Content Editor, Democracy Docket
11:20 a.m. ET:
Kagan: Louisiana wanted to protect incumbents, not draw lines using race: “It creates a less compact district, and no doubt about that,” Kagan said. “But we’ve never said to a state, ‘Oh, you got to go with compactness when the Speaker of the House is going to be thrown out.’ I mean, it’s totally within the prerogative of states to say incumbent protection, and particular incumbents, are really super important to us.”
This is another reminder that the state’s goal here was to protect Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise.
–Zachary Roth, Managing Editor, Democracy Docket
11:18 a.m. ET:
Politics was the head of the snake-shaped district: Callais plaintiffs claimed race was the reason for the odd shape of the district. The attorney for Black residents argued that the reason for the odd shape of the district is due to politics.
–Ashley Cleaves, Legal Content Editor, Democracy Docket
11:15 a.m. ET:
Jackson expressed concern about the possibility of defying court orders: In questioning the conservative plaintiffs in this case, Jackson questioned the plaintiff’s argument that sometimes it’s worth defying a court order: “The question is, did [the state] believe that a court was ordering them to do it?” she asked. “I am sort of concerned… and I want you to clarify it: that a court order compelling you to do something is not a good reason for you to do it?”
–Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter, Democracy Docket
11:05 a.m. ET:
Louisiana was not in a position to ignore the court’s rulings: Justice Elena Kagan said that the state could not ignore two court rulings and draw another map that would dilute the votes of Black voters. The state used its “breathing room” to draw a map that served its political objectives.
–Ashley Cleaves, Legal Content Editor, Democracy Docket
11:00 a.m. ET:
Going well for Louisiana? It’s always dangerous to predict how SCOTUS will rule, but the hearing so far appears to be going pretty well for Louisiana, and badly for the conservative plaintiffs. The state’s claim that it needed to draw another Black-majority district because a federal court had found it violated the VRA — and that’s really the end of the story — doesn’t seem to have been significantly or successfully challenged by any of the Justices.
But lawyers for the conservative voters are just starting to make their case to the justices…
–Zachary Roth, Managing Editor, Democracy Docket
10:52 a.m. ET:
Alito: Was this really a racial gerrymander? It is worth noting that Justice Samuel Alito’s main concern seems to be to narrow the definition of racial gerrymandering by going back to Robinson, the case heard by the district court, and questioning whether Black voters were really unfairly separated, or “cracked,” in the first place.
–Zachary Roth, Managing Editor, Democracy Docket
10:50 a.m. ET:
The “squiggly snake” district argument: Jackson seemed a bit incredulous that the politics — to protect the districts represented by House Speaker Mike Johnson (R) and Rep. Steve Scalise (R) — was the driving force behind drawing a “squiggly snake”-type map.
“At that point, I’m wondering whether we are even in a world in which strict scrutiny is applied, because the state’s motivation for drawing the squiggly snake state map is not race, its motivation at that point is clearly politics,” she said.
–Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter, Democracy Docket
10:40 a.m. ET:
Are conservative justices laying the groundwork for defying court orders? One of the underlying issues in this case is whether complying with court orders is a good reason for a state to draw a new map. Listening to some of the conservative justices cast doubt on this, one cannot help but hear a potential permission structure developing on the right for the Trump administration to defy court orders.
–Marc Elias, Founder, Democracy Docket
10:35 a.m. ET:
Jackson: ‘The order existed’: The conservative justices asked several questions on whether the state thought the Robinson court order was wrong. Justice Kentanji Brown Jackson countered by saying that the court does not need to engage in those hypotheticals, because the court order “existed.” That was a good enough reason for Louisiana to have followed it, she said.
–Ashley Cleaves, Legal Content Editor, Democracy Docket
10:25 a.m. ET:
Louisiana: Look, we think Section 2 is unconstitutional: Louisiana’s lawyer mentioned in passing that his state believes the most important existing plank of the VRA, Section 2, is unconstitutional — a common position among red states, and one that would render the VRA totally toothless. But he said yes the state was required to follow it in drawing its map.
–Zachary Roth, Managing Editor, Democracy Docket
10:20 a.m. ET:
Louisiana said it just wanted to protect incumbents: Counsel for Louisiana started by defending the current map, with two Black opportunity districts, because it was enacted by the legislature to protect two Republican incumbent members.
–Marc Elias, Founder, Democracy Docket
10:15 a.m. ET:
Louisiana lawyers lay out the essence of their argument: “We’re in the business of complying with federal court decisions, and when they told us that we needed to draw a second majority black district, that’s what we did,” a lawyer for the state of Louisiana said shortly after opening statements, summarizing the essence of the state’s argument in this case. He also said that the state feels that Section 2 of the VRA is unconstitutional, but they lost that argument in previous redistricting battles and now they’re complying with the court’s ruling.
–Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter, Democracy Docket
9:45 a.m. ET:
Eric Holder Urgers SCOTUS to Protect Fair Maps in Louisiana: Ahead of oral argument this morning, former U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder issued a statement urging SCOTUS to protect Louisiana’s two majority-Black districts.
“This Court ruled just two years ago to uphold Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, so any decision coming out of this case should do the same,” Holder, who founded the National Redistricting Foundation, said in a statement. “The Voting Rights Act enshrines the right to an equal opportunity to access our political system – and for Black Louisianans that means having two congressional districts where their voices can be meaningfully heard. Anything short of that would be a textbook violation of that law.
“This absurd challenge to Louisiana’s fair map presents the same arguments as the anti-civil rights coalition did to prevent the enactment and reauthorizations of the Voting Rights Act a generation ago. In moments like this, it is the duty of the courts to protect the rights of American citizens, and in this case the Supreme Court must reinstate Louisiana’s Voting Rights Act-compliant map.”
–Matt Cohen, Senior Reporter, Democracy Docket