Opinion: The Recent Supreme Court Case of Louisiana v. Callais; Are we repeating History?

Background/Precedents. 

Anyone even the least bit acquainted with American History or government would know that though a democracy on paper, the question of who exactly can vote in America has always been a fraught one. Initially, it was property holding white males, then universal white-male suffrage was established. After that, in the 20’s, after the first World War and due in large part to the suffragette movement, women gained the right to vote. Finally, in 1965, due to the passage of the voting rights act, African Americans, who had had the right to vote on paper but had been blocked from voting in the Jim Crow South, were protected under the law. Section 2 of The Voting Rights Act of 1965 “prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race, color, or membership in one of the language minority groups identified in Section 4(f)(2) of the Act”. The voting rights act, however, is not where the story ends.

Anyone additionally versed in the language of American Politics has likely heard the term Gerrymandering. Especially in recent years, with the unprecedented mid-census redistricting and California’s Proposition 50, the term has become a stone thrown by both sides of the political spectrum at one another. Gerrymandering, is at its core, when districts are pieced together not based on shared characteristics of residents, but to serve whoever draws the map. It has come up recently in the context of The Supreme Court decision of Louisiana vs. Callais. 

Representative Justin Pearson being blocked from a hearing that will eradicate his congressional district in Tennessee, 2026.

In Louisiana vs. Callais, The United States Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana and other states must redistrict. The states in question had been basing congressional maps on the basis of race. While that may cause a knee-jerk reaction in readers, to clarify, this was predominantly to protect the say of minority voters in areas that they made up the majority of. Essentially, by judging on the basis of race in this case, the states were attempting not to disenfranchise voters, but rather to make sure all voters were adequately represented. Due to the supreme court’s decision however, Tennessee was forced to eliminate its only majority black, and only democratic leaning congression. Tennessee carved up the map, so the majority Black population of Memphis, was divided into multiple other districts in which the majority became the minority. This also led to the dissolution of the job of representative from Tennessee, the only African-American representative, Justin Pearson, who was blocked from the hearing regarding the remapping of his own district, chillingly echoing history in which African American activists were blocked.  

Day 5, Selma, 1965.

The majority opinion of the court was that “The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny”(24-109 Louisiana V. Callais (04/29/2026), 2026) while the minority of the court stated that by forcing a redistricting they were actually leading to discrimination. 

Opinion:

Though I can see the legal basis of the majority of The Supreme Court’s argument, I firmly disagree with the majority opinion. In an attempt to protect constitutional rights against discrimination, the court has furthered the legal ability of states to do just that. As race, according to the court, should not be considered a factor in congressional redistricting, states are essentially enabled to carve up cities with majority black populations placing them in congressional districts demographically, geographically, and financially different thus disenfranchising those voters. Though I agree with the court that racial discrimination should not be tolerated, I would argue this decision only furthers the ability of states to discriminate against certain people whenever convenient. Ultimately, I think this decision will lead to

disenfranchisement of certain voters, the very thing the court aims to prevent, thus chillingly echoing America's dark past. I firmly hope that if a similar case goes before the supreme court, the court will overturn the precedent set in Louisiana v. Callais.

---

References

Civil Rights Division | Section 2 Of The Voting Rights Act. (2023, April 5). Department of Justice. Retrieved June 23, 2026, from https://www.justice.gov/crt/section-2-voting-rights-act#sec2

Levine, S. (2026, April 29). US supreme court 'demolishes' Voting Rights Act, gutting provision that prevented racial discrimination. The Guardian. Retrieved June 23, 2026, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/apr/29/supreme-court-louisiana-congressional-map-case-ruling

Papadopoulos, N. (2026, May 11). Tennessee Voters Sue to Block Redrawn Congressional Map that Discriminates Against and Silences Black Memphians | American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU. Retrieved June 23, 2026, from https://www.aclu.org/press-releases/tennessee-voters-sue-to-block-redrawn-congressional-map-that-discriminates-against-and-silences-black-memphians

Rosen, J. (2015, August). 'Give Us the Ballot,' by Ari Berman. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/30/books/review/give-us-the-ballot-by-ari-berman.html

24-109 Louisiana v. Callais (04/29/2026). (2026, April 29). Supreme Court. Retrieved June 23, 2026, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

Wang, H. L. (2026, June 22). Supreme Court allows Voting Rights Act ruling in Arkansas. NPR. Retrieved June 23, 2026, from https://www.npr.org/2026/06/22/nx-s1-5863532/supreme-court-voting-rights-act-private-right-arkansas