Highlights

• Supreme Court orders reargument in Louisiana redistricting case rather than deciding this term, pushing decision to 2026
• Justice Thomas issues rare dissent from reargument order, arguing the Court is avoiding its constitutional duty
• Louisiana caught in legal bind: Sued for VRA violation with one Black district, then sued for racial gerrymandering with two
• Thomas blames the 2023 Milligan decision for creating "intractable conflict" between voting rights law and the Equal Protection Clause
• The current map allowed for the 2024 elections to result in Louisiana electing two Black representatives forthe  first time in state history
• Case could reshape national redistricting law ahead of 2030 census redistricting cycle

Supreme Court Delays Louisiana Redistricting Decision, Orders Case for Reargument

Unusual move comes as Thomas dissents, calling for an end to VRA's "disastrous misadventure"

WASHINGTON D.C. (KPEL News) — The U.S. Supreme Court issued an unexpected order Friday directing that Louisiana v. Callais be scheduled for reargument rather than decided this term, prolonging uncertainty over the state's congressional map that features two majority-Black districts.

The decision prompted Justice Clarence Thomas to issue a rare dissent from a reargument order, where he argued the Court was avoiding its constitutional duty to resolve what he characterized as an "intractable conflict" between federal voting rights law and the Equal Protection Clause.

The Constitutional Dilemma

At the heart of the case lies a legal paradox that has ensnared Louisiana's redistricting process. The state was initially sued in 2022 for creating only one majority-Black congressional district despite Black residents comprising roughly one-third of Louisiana's population. Federal courts ruled this likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

When Louisiana lawmakers responded by creating a second majority-Black district in January 2024, stretching 250 miles from Shreveport to Baton Rouge, they faced a new lawsuit claiming the map constituted racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth Amendment.

The three-judge federal panel that heard the challenge ruled 2-1 that the new map violated the Equal Protection Clause, finding that race was the predominant factor in drawing district lines.

Thomas: "Constitution is Supreme Over Statutes"

In his dissent, Thomas argued that Congress mandates the Court's jurisdiction over constitutional redistricting challenges, making Friday's delay inappropriate.

"Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly," Thomas wrote.

Thomas placed particular blame on the Court's 2023 decision in Allen v. Milligan, arguing it created an untenable framework that effectively requires states to create majority-minority districts whenever racial polarization exists in voting patterns—essentially mandating proportional racial representation.

"Under the Milligan Court's construction of the statute, it is difficult to see how §2 imposes any real barrier to a district court providing a race-based remedy," Thomas wrote, noting that racial polarization in voting "continues to exist in most areas" and is "relatively easy to establish."

The Legal Framework Under Fire

Thomas's critique centers on what he sees as a fundamental misalignment between current Voting Rights Act interpretation and constitutional requirements for race-based remedies. Under established Supreme Court precedent, racial classifications typically require "specific, identified instances of past discrimination" to justify their use.

However, Thomas argued that the current VRA framework allows "patent racial gerrymandering under the auspices of §2 compliance" without requiring such evidence. He criticized the system for permitting race-based remedies when conditions are "utterly divorced from the sort of specific, identified instances of past discrimination" that constitutional law demands.

Three Decades of Frustration

Thomas revealed the depth of his disagreement with current voting rights jurisprudence, noting he has called for "a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2" for over thirty years. He described the Court's VRA decisions as a "disastrous misadventure" and expressed hope the Court would eventually recognize that the conflict between its statutory interpretation and constitutional requirements "is too severe to ignore."

Political and Practical Implications

For Louisiana, the reargument order extends a redistricting saga that has dominated state politics for over two years. The Supreme Court's emergency stay last May allowed the 2024 elections to proceed under the two-district map, resulting in Louisiana electing two Black representatives for the first time in state history.

The case has drawn attention from redistricting experts nationwide as a potential vehicle for the Court to reshape the balance between federal voting rights protections and constitutional equal protection requirements. Rearguments at the Supreme Court are rare, typically occurring when justices want to address broader questions than originally presented or when the Court is deeply divided.

What Comes Next

The Court will issue a scheduling order for new oral arguments "in due course," with a decision now unlikely until 2026. This timing could affect not just Louisiana's congressional representation but also provide guidance for other states preparing redistricting plans following the 2030 census.

The case consolidates Louisiana v. Callais and Robinson v. Callais, with civil rights groups defending the two-district map as necessary to ensure Black voters have fair representation, while challengers argue it constitutes impermissible racial gerrymandering.

Thomas concluded his dissent with characteristic directness: "Because the Court declines to reach that conclusion today and instead inexplicably schedules these cases for reargument, I respectfully dissent."