The United States Supreme Court has struck down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana as an “unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”
The Court was divided 6-3 over this case, with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting.
“The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny,” the majority said.
There are only two instances in which such discrimination is permissible: “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons” and “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.”
At question in this case was whether compliance with §2 of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting practices or procedures, “should be added to this very short list of compelling interests.”
Authored by Justice Samuel Alito, the majority opinion contends that efforts to comply with this section of the law do not justify the consideration of race when determining congressional maps.
“Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 was designed to enforce the Constitution—
not collide with it,” wrote Justice Alito. “Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this Court’s §2 precedents in a way that forces States to engage in the very race-based discrimination that the Constitution forbids.”
“In short, Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the State intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race,” he wrote. “Not only does this interpretation follow from the plain text of Section 2, but it is consistent with the limited authority that the Fifteenth Amendment confers.”
Justice Clarence Thomas issued a brief concurring opinion that was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch in which it was suggested that the Court “should never have interpreted §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups ‘an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.’”
The Court’s ruling, Thomas said, “should largely put an end to this ‘disastrous misadventure’ in voting-rights jurisprudence,” adding that he does not believe §2 “regulate[s] districting at all.”
Following the 2020 census, Louisiana redrew its congressional districts, as is customary every ten years. The map the state produced was subsequently struck down by a federal judge in the Middle District of Louisiana for allegedly violating the Voting Rights Act by not including an additional majority-black district.
When the state moved to redraw the map in order to bring it into compliance, it was again brought to court, this time over allegations of racial gerrymandering.
Two rounds of oral arguments were heard by the Supreme Court in this case, with the Justices asking the parties to submit new briefs for their upcoming term addressing whether “the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates” the Constitution.
The Justices specifically referred to the 14th and 15th Amendments in this order, provisions of the Constitution that bar the government from denying or restricting voting rights on the basis of race.
In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling Wednesday, some legal experts have suggested that cases challenging alleged discriminatory congressional districts may face additional hurdles in the future.
Such concerns over the possible long-range implications of the ruling were central to the dissenting Justices’ argument.
“Under the Court’s new view of Section 2, a State can, without legal consequence, systematically dilute minority citizens’ voting power,” Justice Kagan wrote.
“I dissent because the Court betrays its duty to faithfully implement the great statute Congress wrote,” she continued. “I dissent because the Court’s decision will set back the foundational right Congress granted of racial equality in electoral opportunity.”
Kagan also drew attention to a 1982 amendment made by Congress to §2 of the Voting Rights Act to override a prior Supreme Court holding that the measure prevented only intentional discrimination.
“It made sure instead,” Kagan wrote, “that §2 would ‘turn[] on the presence of discriminatory effects.’”
“Today’s decision,” Kagan argued, “returns §2 to what it was [prior to the 1982 amendment.]”
“Now, as then, vote-dilution plaintiffs will have to show more than vote dilution: They will have to show, as well, race-based motive,” she said. “Now, as then, that requirement will make success in their suits nearly impossible.”
“The consequences are likely to be far-reaching and grave. Today’s decision renders Section 2 all but a dead letter,” the dissenting Justices said.
Click Here to Read the Full Opinion
The White House responded positively to the Court’s 6-3 ruling in a statement Wednesday.
“The color of one’s skin should not dictate which congressional district you belong in,” said Abigail Jackson, a White House spokeswoman, as reported by CBS News. “We commend the court for putting an end to the unconstitutional abuse of the Voting Rights Act and protecting civil rights.”
