InsideGov
Supreme Court · Decisions

Louisiana v. Callais

The Court, in a challenge to Louisiana's new congressional map that created two majority-minority districts, affirmed the district panel's judgment that the map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fifteenth Amendment.· AI-written

146 S. Ct. 1131 · No. 24-109 · 2025 term · Roberts Court

Decided Apr 29, 2026 · argued Mar 24, 2025, reargued Oct 15, 2025

Civil rights · Voting Rights Act of 1965, plus amendments

Landmark · Voting and redistrictingStruck down a state law

Majority opinion: Samuel Alito

The voteMajorityDissent

6–36 in the majority, 3 in dissent

3 dissents (6–3)

Affirmed. Louisiana lost.

What this ruling means

Affirmed: the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Louisiana Western U.S. District Court, so it stands (sometimes with changes the Court made to it).

Louisiana was the petitioner, the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the case. “Lost” means the Court did not give that side the result it asked for.

From the Supreme Court Database. A justice who agreed with the result but not the reasoning counts in the majority.

Report a correction

Summary

The opening of the case’s Wikipedia article: what the case was about and what the Court held.

Louisiana v. Callais, consolidated with Robinson v. Callais, 608 U.S. ___ (2026), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States concerning racial gerrymandering and redistricting in the state of Louisiana following the 2020 United States census. After the Supreme Court's decision in Allen v. Milligan, the Louisiana legislature produced a new map under court orders, allocating two of the state's six districts as majority-minority districts using the state's 2020 census demographics and in compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. The new maps were challenged as racially-gerrymandered and a constitutional violation of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments. In a 6–3 decision, the Court ruled along ideological lines that affirmed the federal district panel's judgement that the new redistricting map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Fifteenth Amendment.

While the Court declined to find Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act unconstitutional, it established additional requirements for vote dilution claims to succeed, beyond the ones set out in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986). Justice Samuel Alito, writing for the majority, held that plaintiffs in Section 2 challenges must demonstrate that a state intentionally redistricted to diminish the opportunity for minority voters, by the plaintiffs offering their own, alternative maps that meet the state's legitimate goals while correcting the minority vote. Absent such proof, the Court indicated that such challenges would be deemed not an illegal gerrymander, under the precedent of Rucho v. Common Cause (2019).

Read the full article on Wikipedia

Data notes

The text is Wikipedia’s (CC BY-SA 4.0), matched to the case by its citation, docket number or name and year, and is not checked against the opinion. The site keeps the article’s opening section, ending on its last full sentence. The one-sentence summary under the title is the Decisions list’s: Wikipedia’s own ruling sentence, or, tagged “AI-written”, one Claude wrote from this opening.

Report a correction

How the justices voted

Each justice who took part, placed by their provisional Martin–Quinn ideology score for the 2025 term. Filled: the 6 in the majority. Hollow: the 3 in dissent. Colour is the party of the president who appointed them.

More liberalMore conservativeMedianSotomayorK. JacksonKaganJ. RobertsKavanaughBarrettGorsuchAlitoThomas

Majority(6)

Dissent(3)

Data notes

Each justice’s vote and what they wrote are from the justice-centered file of the Supreme Court Database. “Wrote a concurrence” means the justice sided with the majority and wrote separately; a justice who dissented in part is counted on the side they took overall. A justice who wrote nothing is listed as joining their side.

Positions are each justice’s Martin–Quinn score for the case’s term: negative is more liberal, positive more conservative. A score sums up a justice’s votes across the whole term, so it says where they usually sit, not why they voted as they did here. The median line is the Court’s median justice that term.

The 2025 scores are provisional. The official Martin–Quinn release does not cover this term yet, so the scores are copied from Lee Epstein, Andrew D. Martin & Michael J. Nelson, Provisional Data Report on the U.S. Supreme Court's 2025 Term, Table 3.1 (scores by Kevin Quinn), published 2026-06-30. They will be replaced by the official scores when those come out, and may change. The median line is the middle of these nine scores.

Report a correction

The parties

Who brought the case to the Court, who answered it, and how it got there.

Petitioner
LouisianaState (Louisiana)
Respondent
CallaisVoter, prospective voter, elector, or a nonelective official seeking reapportionment or redistricting of legislative districts (POL)
Reached the Court by
Appeal (the Court was required to hear it)
Data notes

The names are the two sides of the case’s title. The description under each is the Supreme Court Database’s category for that party, in its own wording. The petitioner is the side that asked the Supreme Court to review the decision below. “Why it was taken” appears only when the majority opinion says lower courts disagreed or were unsure about the question; reasons that would fit any case (“to resolve the question presented”, “an important question”) are left out.

Report a correction

The law at issue

The law the Court was asked to apply, and the kind of power it used to decide.

Provision
Fourteenth Amendment (equal protection)
Kind of law
Constitutional Amendment
Decided by
Judicial review (state level)
Struck down
A state law, as unconstitutional
Data notes

The Supreme Court Database codes the main constitutional provision, statute or court rule each case turned on, and the basis of the decision: judicial review of a federal or state law, interpreting a statute, supervising the lower courts, and so on. A case can rest on more than one. “Overruled” counts only where the majority opinion says so.

Report a correction

Timeline

What happened at the Court and how the case got there, newest first.

  1. Apr 29, 2026DecidedDecided · Decided 6–3: affirmed. Louisiana lost.
  2. Oct 15, 2025RearguedReargued · The Court heard the case argued a second time.
  3. Mar 24, 2025ArguedArgued · Oral argument before the Court.
  4. Not datedTaken upTaken up · Reached the Supreme Court on appeal, which the Court had to hear.
  5. Not datedCourt belowCourt below · Began in and was decided by the Louisiana Western U.S. District Court, with a dissent.
Data notes

From the Supreme Court Database: the court the case began in, the court whose decision the Supreme Court reviewed and what that court did, how the case came to the Court, and the dates of argument and decision. The database does not date the steps in the lower courts. Court names are the database’s.

Report a correction

Other decisions on the same issue

45 other argued cases since 1946 on voting Rights Act of 1965, plus amendments, newest first.

  1. Allen v. Milligan599 U.S. 1Jun 8, 2023 · 599 U.S. 1Civil rights5–45–4 band

  2. Brnovich v. Democratic National CommitteeLandmark · Voting and redistricting141 S. Ct. 2321Jul 1, 2021 · 141 S. Ct. 2321Civil rights6–36–3 band

  3. Abbott v. Perez138 S. Ct. 2305Jun 25, 2018 · 138 S. Ct. 2305Civil rights5–45–4 band

  4. Shelby County v. HolderLandmark · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights570 U.S. 529Jun 25, 2013 · 570 U.S. 529Civil rights5–45–4 band

  5. Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, et al.557 U.S. 193Jun 22, 2009 · 557 U.S. 193Civil rights8–18–1 band

  6. Gary Bartlett, Executive Director of the North Carolina State Board of Elections et al. v. Dwight Strickland et al.556 U.S. 1Mar 9, 2009 · 556 U.S. 1Civil rights5–45–4 band

  7. Bob Riley, Governor of Alabama v. Yvonne Kennedy et al553 U.S. 406May 27, 2008 · 553 U.S. 406Civil rights7–27–2 band

  8. League of United Latin American Citizens, et al. v. Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, et al.548 U.S. 399Jun 28, 2006 · 548 U.S. 399Civil rights5–45–4 band

  9. Georgia v. John Ashcroft, Attorney General, et al.539 U.S. 461Jun 26, 2003 · 539 U.S. 461Civil rights5–45–4 band

  10. Beatrice Branch, et al. v. John Robert Smith et al.538 U.S. 254Mar 31, 2003 · 538 U.S. 254Civil rights7–27–2 band
  11. Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board528 U.S. 320Jan 24, 2000 · 528 U.S. 320Civil rights5–45–4 band
  12. Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County et al.525 U.S. 266Jan 20, 1999 · 525 U.S. 266Civil rights8–18–1 band
  13. Lucious Abrams, Jr., G. L. Avery, William Gary Chambers, Sr., and Karen Watson v. Davida Johnson et al.521 U.S. 74Jun 19, 1997 · 521 U.S. 74Civil rights5–45–4 band
  14. Janet Reno, Attorney General v. Bossier Parish School Board et al.520 U.S. 471May 12, 1997 · 520 U.S. 471Civil rights7–27–2 band
  15. Thomas Young, et al. v. Kirk Fordice et al.520 U.S. 273Mar 31, 1997 · 520 U.S. 273Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  16. Vicky M. Lopez, et al. v. Monterey County, California, et al.519 U.S. 9Nov 6, 1996 · 519 U.S. 9Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  17. Fortis Morse, Kenneth Curtis Bartholomew and Kimberly J. Enderson v. Republican Party of Virginia et al.517 U.S. 186Mar 27, 1996 · 517 U.S. 186Civil rights5–45–4 band
  18. Bolley Johnson, Speaker of the Florida House of Representatives, et al. v. Miguel de Grandy et al.512 U.S. 997Jun 30, 1994 · 512 U.S. 997Civil rights7–27–2 band
  19. Jackie Holder, etc., et al. v. E. K. Hall, Sr., et al.512 U.S. 874Jun 30, 1994 · 512 U.S. 874Civil rights5–45–4 band
  20. Lawrence C. Presley, etc. v. Etowah County Commission et al.502 U.S. 491Jan 27, 1992 · 502 U.S. 491Civil rights6–36–3 band
  21. Houston Lawyers' Association, et al. v. Attorney General of Texas, et al.501 U.S. 419Jun 20, 1991 · 501 U.S. 419Civil rights6–36–3 band
  22. Ronald Chisom, et al. v. Charles E. Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.501 U.S. 380Jun 20, 1991 · 501 U.S. 380Civil rights6–36–3 band
  23. Janice G. Clark et al. v. Charles 'Buddy' Roemer, Governor of Louisiana, et al.500 U.S. 646Jun 3, 1991 · 500 U.S. 646Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  24. City of Pleasant Grove v. United States479 U.S. 462Jan 21, 1987 · 479 U.S. 462Civil rights6–36–3 band
  25. Thornburg, Attorney General of North Carolina, et al. v. Gingles et al.478 U.S. 30Jun 30, 1986 · 478 U.S. 30Civil rights9–0Unanimous band

  26. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People et al. v. Hampton County Election Commission et al.470 U.S. 166Feb 27, 1985 · 470 U.S. 166Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  27. McCain et al. v. Lybrand et al.465 U.S. 236Feb 21, 1984 · 465 U.S. 236Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  28. City of Lockhart v. United States et al.460 U.S. 125Feb 23, 1983 · 460 U.S. 125Civil rights6–36–3 band
  29. City of Port Arthur, Texas v. United States et al.459 U.S. 159Dec 13, 1982 · 459 U.S. 159Civil rights6–36–3 band
  30. Hathorn et al. v. Lovorn et al.457 U.S. 255Jun 15, 1982 · 457 U.S. 255Civil rights8–18–1 band
  31. McDaniel et al. v. Sanchez et al.452 U.S. 130Jun 1, 1981 · 452 U.S. 130Civil rights7–27–2 band
  32. City of Rome et al. v. United States et al.446 U.S. 156Apr 22, 1980 · 446 U.S. 156Civil rights6–36–3 band

  33. Dougherty County, Georgia, Board of Education et al. v. White439 U.S. 32Nov 28, 1978 · 439 U.S. 32Civil rights5–45–4 band
  34. United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Alabama, et al.435 U.S. 110Mar 6, 1978 · 435 U.S. 110Civil rights6–36–3 band
  35. Morris et al. v. Gressette, President Pro Tem, South Carolina Senate, et al.432 U.S. 491Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 491Civil rights6–36–3 band
  36. Briscoe, Governor of Texas, et al. v. Bell, Attorney General, et al.432 U.S. 404Jun 20, 1977 · 432 U.S. 404Civil rights9–0Unanimous band
  37. Beer et al. v. United States et al.425 U.S. 130Mar 30, 1976 · 425 U.S. 130Civil rights5–36–3 band
  38. City of Richmond, Virginia v. United States et al.422 U.S. 358Jun 24, 1975 · 422 U.S. 358Civil rights5–36–3 band

  39. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, New York City Region of New York Conference of Branches, et al. v. New York et al.413 U.S. 345Jun 21, 1973 · 413 U.S. 345Civil rights6–27–2 band
  40. Georgia et al. v. United States411 U.S. 526May 7, 1973 · 411 U.S. 526Civil rights6–36–3 band
  41. Perkins et al. v. Matthews, Mayor of the City of Canton, et al.400 U.S. 379Jan 14, 1971 · 400 U.S. 379Civil rights8–18–1 band
  42. Gaston County, North Carolina v. United States395 U.S. 285Jun 2, 1969 · 395 U.S. 285Civil rights7–18–1 band
  43. Hadnott et al. v. Amos, Secretary of State of Alabama, et al.394 U.S. 358Mar 25, 1969 · 394 U.S. 358Civil rights6–27–2 band
  44. Katzenbach, Attorney General, et al. v. Morgan et ux.Landmark · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights384 U.S. 641Jun 13, 1966 · 384 U.S. 641Civil rights7–27–2 band
  45. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, Attorney GeneralLandmark · Power of Congress to enforce civil rights383 U.S. 301Mar 7, 1966 · 383 U.S. 301Civil rights8–18–1 band

Data notes

Every other orally argued case with a clear vote, from the 1946 term on, that the Supreme Court Database files under the same issue as this one. The database gives each case one issue from a list of about 270 (abortion, search and seizure of vehicles, the death penalty, and so on), whatever law it turned on.

Report a correction

Official record

Read the argument audio on Oyez and Wikipedia. Case data from the Supreme Court Database, Version 2026 Release 01, through the 2025 term.