Get ready for a courtroom showdown that could reshape how America draws its political lines.
As reported by Newsmax, lawyers from Louisiana and the Trump administration are pushing to dismantle the state’s second majority-Black congressional district, arguing it’s an outdated nod to race-based politics.
This battle isn’t just about one district—it’s a test of whether considering race in redistricting should even be allowed, especially as mid-decade map changes are already stirring controversy in Republican-led states like Texas at President Trump’s urging.
Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill didn’t mince words in the state’s filing, declaring, “Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution.” Well, that’s a bold claim, but it sidesteps the messy reality that voting patterns in Louisiana still often split along racial lines, a fact even progressive groups acknowledge.
The story starts after the 2020 census, when Black voters and civil rights advocates sued over a GOP-drawn map that featured just one majority-Black district in a state where a third of the population is Black. Lower courts agreed, tossing out the map for likely violating voting rights laws.
Louisiana appealed to the Supreme Court, but after a 2023 ruling in a similar Alabama case—where Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh sided with the liberal justices to uphold a majority-Black district—the state added a second such district to comply.
Yet, the drama didn’t end there; white voters challenged the new map, claiming race, not politics, drove the redraw, and a three-judge panel agreed, bringing us to today’s Supreme Court clash. It’s a pivot that smells less like principle and more like a convenient way to dodge accountability.
Chief Justice Roberts, a key figure in this saga, has long questioned race-conscious policies, dating back to his days in the Reagan administration. His 2006 dissent lamenting the “sordid business” of dividing by race still echoes, though one wonders if he sees the irony in a system that often leaves minority voters without a real voice.
In 2013, Roberts penned the majority opinion gutting a key part of the Voting Rights Act, arguing the country had “changed” and laws must reflect “current conditions.” Fair enough, but when voting patterns still show stark racial divides, isn’t ignoring race just another way of ignoring history?
Speaking of current conditions, Sarah Brannon of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project noted, “Race is still very much a factor in current voting patterns in the state of Louisiana.” That’s a tough pill for anti-woke folks to swallow, but pretending otherwise risks glossing over why these districts were drawn in the first place.
The Supreme Court itself raised a blockbuster question for this case: Does intentionally creating a second majority-minority district violate constitutional amendments meant to ensure political equality post-Civil War? It’s a query that hints at a seismic shift, much like the Citizens United case that unleashed a flood of campaign cash after re-argument.
Possible outcomes range from limiting court intervention in redistricting to essentially handing state legislatures a blank check, especially after the court already stepped back from partisan gerrymandering claims in 2019. That’s a recipe for maps drawn with partisan glee, not fairness in mind.
Louisiana’s history adds layers to this fight—back in the 1990s, it briefly had a second Black-majority district until courts struck it down for over-relying on race. Now, with two Black Democrats recently elected from newly drawn districts in Louisiana and Alabama, the stakes feel personal as well as political.
One of those lawmakers represents the district Roberts described as a “snake” slithering across the state to pick up Black voters, a jab that civil rights lawyers counter with a grim truth: slavery, Jim Crow, and economic disparity shaped where people live. If maps look odd, maybe it’s because the past isn’t as past as we’d like to think.
Ultimately, this case could redefine how much protection minority voters have under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, especially after earlier rulings stripped away federal oversight of discriminatory voting changes. With Louisiana no longer defending its own map and the Trump administration siding against race-conscious districts, the court’s decision might tilt the balance of power in Congress itself—and not in a way that prioritizes equal representation.
