October Term 2025 · Docket 24-109
Can Louisiana Draw a Congressional Map That Uses Race to Remedy Vote Dilution?
Louisiana and its challengers dispute whether the state's congressional map, drawn to address a federal finding that Black voters' votes were diluted, violates the Constitution.
Verified source milestones
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
- — An official Court opinion was verified.
The arguments, in order
This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.
Argument 1 ·
What happened at the argument
Nelson argued Louisiana rejected maps that met its criteria while giving Black voters equal opportunity, and that no Black candidate has won statewide. She said Section 2 deters discrimination and that states draw maps with it in mind.
Mr. Greim argued voters are stereotyped by race to place them into districts, and that Section 2 findings alone cannot justify racial gerrymandering under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.
Mr. Mooppan argued the Constitution bars race from subordinating traditional districting principles, and that Gingles as construed makes race predominant, requiring states to subordinate their principles.
Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 133, lines 55-29 — Transcript, file page 133, lines 55-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 53-17 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 53-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-39 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 55-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 55-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 55-41 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 55-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 37-27 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 37-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 53-11
A citizen's guide to the whole case
What this case is about
The Supreme Court heard arguments in Louisiana v. Callais and a consolidated case. The dispute centers on a Louisiana congressional map, SB8, created after a court found the state had packed and cracked Black voters. The Court must decide whether using race to draw that map is constitutional.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
How the case got here
A lower court found Louisiana's earlier map diluted Black voters' votes. The state responded by enacting SB8, which created a second majority-Black district. Challengers sued, arguing the new map used race improperly. The case reached the Supreme Court after lower-court rulings.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 11-23 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 11-23
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 55-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 55-45
What each side wants
Louisiana and its defenders say SB8 remedies documented vote dilution and is constitutional. They argue precedent supports race-conscious remedies and that maps are redrawn every decade, limiting indefinite use of race.
Challengers say race-based redistricting is unconstitutional. They argue it relies on racial stereotypes, has no logical end point, and that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act alone cannot justify racial gerrymandering. Some ask the Court to affirm a lower ruling and direct a remedial map for the 2026 elections.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
What each side says
Janai Nelson, representing Robinson plaintiffs, argued Louisiana's map remedies discrimination under Section 2 and that precedent confirms its constitutionality.
Mr. Aguiñaga, for Louisiana, argued race-based redistricting is government-mandated racial balancing that the Constitution does not tolerate. And Asked the Court to reject claims that Section 2 compliance is a compelling interest without deciding it has never been rejected.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
What the justices asked
Justice Thomas questioned whether SB8 was the remedy for the Robinson case or separate from that litigation. And Whether there was ever a full merits determination or a court order for the particular map.
Justice Jackson asked why Allen v. Milligan is relevant, and whether that case considered changing the Section 2 criteria known as Gingles. Chief Justice Roberts asked whether Milligan took existing precedent as a given and considered Alabama's evidentiary showing, which turned out to be improper. Justice Alito asked whether incumbent protection counts as a traditional districting criterion under Milligan.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 10, lines 17-27 — Transcript, file page 10, lines 17-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 11, lines 17-25 — Transcript, file page 11, lines 17-25
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 12, lines 29-53 — Transcript, file page 12, lines 29-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 133, lines 55-29 — Transcript, file page 133, lines 55-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 41-43 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 41-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 27-35 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 27-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 39-41 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 39-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 135, lines 53-17 — Transcript, file page 135, lines 53-17
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 27-31 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 27-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 136, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 136, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 15-29 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 15-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 35-41 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 35-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 137, lines 55-7 — Transcript, file page 137, lines 55-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 68, lines 53-7 — Transcript, file page 68, lines 53-7
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 69, lines 9-39 — Transcript, file page 69, lines 9-39
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 11-15 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 11-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 49-53 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 49-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 70, lines 37-47 — Transcript, file page 70, lines 37-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 23-35 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 23-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 72, lines 55-45 — Transcript, file page 72, lines 55-45
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 74, lines 33-47 — Transcript, file page 74, lines 33-47
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 51-53 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 51-53
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 75, lines 55-41 — Transcript, file page 75, lines 55-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 76, lines 45-49 — Transcript, file page 76, lines 45-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 33-35 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 33-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 37-27 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 37-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 78, lines 7-15 — Transcript, file page 78, lines 7-15
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 25-27 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 25-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 31-35 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 31-35
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 47-49 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 47-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 17-29 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 17-29
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 41-49 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 41-49
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 53-11 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 53-11
Why it matters
The ruling could reshape how states comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. It may determine whether race-conscious districting remains available to remedy vote dilution, affecting maps nationwide.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
What the Court decided
Louisiana's map with the extra majority-black district was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because the Voting Rights Act did not require such a district.
The lower court's judgment is affirmed and the case is remanded.
Official sources for this section
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 2, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 2, lines 1-1
- Official Supreme Court Opinion — file page 6, lines 1-1 — Opinion, file page 6, lines 1-1
Official Court provenance
Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page
Verified official opinions and orders
Title and summary sources
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 103, lines 41-41 — Transcript, file page 103, lines 41-41
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 134, lines 31-33 — Transcript, file page 134, lines 31-33
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 158, lines 21-31 — Transcript, file page 158, lines 21-31
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 49, lines 29-43 — Transcript, file page 49, lines 29-43
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 25-9 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 25-9
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 67, lines 43-11 — Transcript, file page 67, lines 43-11
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 83, lines 33-27 — Transcript, file page 83, lines 33-27
Revision history
- Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.
- Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Removed an unsupported statement that the Court had not ruled; the available source set did not establish that absence.
- Revision 3 · Official Transcript ·
Correction: Corrected unsupported no-ruling language and clarified that the article's disposition summary is incomplete.
- Revision 4 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Added the holding and disposition from the verified official Court opinion.
- Revision 5 · Post Opinion ·
Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.