Clarence Thomas Wants to Rethink Voting Rights Act as Supreme Court Delays Louisiana Redistricting Case

On the final day of the Supreme Court's term, the justices postponed a major redistricting case—Louisiana v. Callais—until the next term, prompting a pointed dissent from Justice Clarence Thomas. The case concerns the legality of a newly drawn second Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana. The state's Black population is 32.6%, yet historically, only one of its six congressional districts had a Black majority. The new map, approved by the Republican-led legislature after a prior map was struck down, is being challenged as an example of illegal racial gerrymandering.

Justice Thomas criticized the delay, writing that the Court has an obligation to rule on congressional redistricting cases promptly: "These are the only cases argued this Term in which our jurisdiction is mandatory." He added, "For over three decades, I have called for 'a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2' of the Voting Rights Act." He said the case reveals a deep conflict between the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing that "race was the predominant factor used to draw congressional boundaries."

Hans von Spakovsky of the Heritage Foundation echoed Thomas' concerns, saying, "Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been unconstitutionally used...to justify race-based redistricting," which he views as a violation of the Constitution.

However, others praised the current map. ACLU Legal Director Cecillia Wang stated, "We had already won a hard-fought legal battle, proving the legislature's initial map...illegally diluted Black voters' political power." She affirmed the group's commitment to defending the new map next term.

Representative Troy Carter, a Democrat from Louisiana, expressed frustration: "The Court's refusal to resolve the issue only prolongs uncertainty." Still, he defended the map: "It is not racial gerrymander—it is a remedial measure responding to decades of underrepresentation."

NYU Law professor Rick Pildes noted the Court's move signals "big news about race and redistricting" that could "open up bigger issues" in the term ahead. The case will return when the Supreme Court resumes in October.

Link: Newsweek