During a high-stakes Supreme Court session on Wednesday, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson vigorously interrogated Louisiana’s Solicitor General in the case of Louisiana v. Callais, which could have significant implications for the Voting Rights Act (VRA) and the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. The case centers on the constitutionality of race-based majority-minority districts, as outlined in Section 2 of the 1965 VRA.
Louisiana's current congressional map, which includes six districts, has been the subject of controversy following the creation of a second majority-black district as mandated by a federal court. Plaintiffs, a group of white voters who filed suit in 2024, argue that the formation of this district improperly prioritized race over other factors.
Justice Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022 and the first black woman on the Supreme Court, challenged Louisiana’s Solicitor General Benjamin Aguiñaga on whether Section 2 justifies the use of race in districting as a "compelling state interest." Throughout the session, she interrupted Aguiñaga, pressing him to clarify the distinction between identifying voting disparities and using race-based solutions to address them.
Her courtroom demeanor has been consistent with her active role in oral arguments since joining the bench, which has garnered both commendation for her astute legal insights and criticism for her confrontational style. Earlier this year, her exchanges with Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett were noted for their unusually adversarial nature.
Moreover, Jackson has been in the spotlight for signing a book deal while serving on the Court, sparking debates over judicial propriety. Critics have suggested that her public statements on racial inequity and legal reform indicate political leanings that could affect her judicial conduct.
The outcome of Louisiana v. Callais is poised to have a profound impact on the nation. If the Court limits the use of race in districting, it could weaken Section 2 protections, potentially giving Republican-controlled states more leeway in redrawing electoral maps. This raises concerns about the dilution of minority voting rights. Conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas, have previously expressed skepticism about the role of Section 2 in redistricting.
The case underscores the tension between ensuring minority representation and striving for race-neutral electoral processes. Proponents of robust Section 2 protections argue that reducing its scope could undermine the political influence of black and Hispanic communities. Opponents, however, contend that race-based districting can lead to demographic considerations trumping geographic and political fairness.
Analysts predict that narrowing Section 2 protections could make traditionally Democratic districts more competitive and grant Republican-led states greater control over the political landscape. As the Supreme Court deliberates, the case is under intense scrutiny from legal experts and political commentators, with the potential to reignite debates over the intersection of race, law, and politics in America.
