SCOTUS Rules Redistricting Plans Must Meet Updated Voting Rights Act Standards

States, political subdivisions and government entities engaged in or preparing for redistricting should reassess their legal strategy in light of a recent Supreme Court decision.

In a landmark 6–3 ruling in Louisiana v. Callais, the U.S. Supreme Court fundamentally restructured the legal framework governing redistricting. It held that Louisiana’s congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and rewrote the standards used by courts to evaluate alleged violations of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Litigation strategies and redistricting plans that relied on the pre-Callais framework need to be revisited to meet the new requirements.

Why Did the Court Rule Against Louisiana’s 2022 Congressional Map?

The State of Louisiana redrew its congressional districts after the 2020 Census, producing a map with one majority-Black district. In Robinson v. Ardoin, a federal judge in the Middle District of Louisiana held that the 2022 map likely violated Section 2 of the VRA because it failed to include a second majority-Black district. That ruling meant that the state had to draw a second majority-Black district or face a court-ordered map.

Louisiana complied, enacting Senate Bill 8 (SB8), which created a second majority-Black district stretching approximately 250 miles from Shreveport in the northwest corner of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast and connecting areas of predominantly Black population. A group of voters sued, claiming that SB8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge district court in the Western District of Louisiana agreed. It found that race predominated in the drawing of this second majority-Black congressional district, in violation of the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.

Both Louisiana and the Robinson plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court. After an initial round of argument in March 2025, the Supreme Court took the rare step of ordering reargument in October 2025. The Court narrowed the question to whether Louisiana’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority district violated the 14th or 15th Amendments, setting the stage for changes to the laws governing race and redistricting that would have wide-reaching impacts.

In reinterpreting Section 2 of the VRA and updating the legal framework defined by Thornburg v. Gingles in 1986, the Court affirmed the district court’s finding of unconstitutional racial gerrymander.

The Court found that because Louisiana enacted SB8 expressly to create a majority-Black district, the state’s goal was motivated by race, triggering strict scrutiny. And because the Robinson plaintiffs failed to establish a valid Section 2 violation under this new legal framework (i.e., they did not provide an illustrative map that met all of the state’s nonracial goals, their analysis of bloc voting did not control for partisan preferences, and they failed to show an objective likelihood of intentional discrimination based on the totality of the circumstances), no compelling interest (e.g. complying with Section 2) justified the state’s passage of SB8.

What Can States and Localities Learn From the Callais Court’s Decision?

1. Section 2 compliance can be a compelling interest, but it’s a high bar.

For over 30 years, the Court assumed without deciding that compliance with Section 2 of the VRA could constitute a “compelling interest” capable of surviving strict scrutiny when a state deliberately used race in drawing district lines. In Callais, the majority ruled that yes, compliance with Section 2, as properly construed, can serve as a compelling interest. But the majority paired that holding with an updated interpretation of what Section 2 requires, making the compelling interest much harder to invoke and prove in practice.

2. A strong inference of intentional racial discrimination is required to prove a Section 2 violation.

The Court interpreted the text of Section 2 of the VRA in connection with the 15th Amendment, which the VRA was enacted to enforce. It held that Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that a state intentionally drew districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race, not merely because minority voters happen to have less electoral success. A showing of disparate impact or historical discrimination alone is insufficient. The majority grounded this reading in the 15th Amendment, which bars only state action motivated by discriminatory purpose.

3. VRA challenges must now meet an updated Gingles framework.

Rather than overrule Gingles, the Court announced that it was “updating” that framework to align with the statute’s text and significant historical developments of the past decades.

 

#	Gingles Preconditions	What Changed Under Callais
G-1	Minority Numerosity and Compactness (Illustrative Maps)	Illustrative maps must satisfy all of the state’s legitimate nonracial criteria, including political goals. Maps drawn using race as a criterion — even to demonstrate feasibility — will not satisfy this precondition.
G-2	Political Cohesion	Evidence of racially polarized voting must now control for partisan affiliation. Bloc-voting analyses that do not separate race from party preference are insufficient.
G-3	Majority Bloc Voting	Statistical proof of majority-bloc voting must isolate racial motivation, independent of partisan voting patterns.
ToC	Totality of Circumstances	The inquiry must focus on evidence of present-day intentional discrimination. Historical discrimination evidence and generalized effects of societal discrimination carry “much less weight.”

How Does the Ruling Change Current Plans to Redraw Districts?

1. The VRA Section 2 “safe harbor” has stricter requirements. States and localities that have historically drawn districts based on anticipated Section 2 liability must now conduct and satisfy an updated Gingles analysis consisting of the three newly tightened preconditions, along with an updated “totality of the circumstances” analysis. Drawing a majority-minority district without that foundation now invites racial gerrymander liability under the Equal Protection Clause.

2. Section 2 plaintiffs face a higher evidentiary bar. Parties seeking to challenge maps as being dilutive must now produce expert analyses that control for partisan affiliation. Historical discrimination evidence and racial bloc-voting statistics are not sufficient to meet this bar.

3. Post-2030 Census redistricting will be significantly affected. With the 2030 Census approaching, every state legislature, government entity and local government that must redraw district lines will be navigating a substantially changed legal landscape. Decisions made in the months before and during that process, including what data to gather, what redistricting criteria to adopt, how to document deliberations, etc., could be deciding factors in the face of future litigation.

4. Maps currently in litigation face higher risks. Districts drawn under the old Gingles framework, whether in pending litigation or recently enacted maps, should be re-evaluated under the new Callais standards. Maps designed to satisfy anticipated Section 2 liability (under the old Gingles framework) may now be at risk for Equal Protection challenges, considering the new legal analysis and evidence required to prove a Section 2 claim.

5. Allen v. Milligan is narrowed in practice. The Court’s 2023 decision upholding Section 2 liability in Allen v. Milligan addressed a specific evidentiary question not relevant in Callais. Callais effectively cabins Allen, as the state in Allen did not defend its map on the ground that it was drawn to achieve a political objective. Where states assert that their aim is partisan, and since partisan gerrymandering claims are not justiciable in federal court, the Callais Court now requires that race and politics be disentangled. Parties who used Allen as a roadmap for Section 2 compliance need to revisit their strategies.

What Legal Issues Should Lawmakers Plan for Before Redistricting?

Complying with Callais can be complicated. It involves constitutional law, statutory interpretation, expert demographic and political science analysis, and the real-world mechanics of drawing voting maps. The decision created an environment in which the wrong move can expose government entities to significant litigation risks.

Pre-Redistricting Strategy Is Now Non-Negotiable

Under the old framework, states and localities could often draw districts, then litigate. Under Callais, the decisions made at the outset of the redistricting process could largely determine the outcome of litigation down the road. States and localities should involve counsel at the outset to help:

• • Establish the legal framework for the process
  • Identify redistricting criteria to adopt
  • Structure the legislative record to protect against gerrymandering claims
  • Assess what the facts on the ground support before any decisions are made

Expert Assembly and Management

The updated Gingles framework also requires the deployment of sophisticated expert testimony. This includes demographers, political scientists and statisticians who can analyze voting patterns independently and produce illustrative maps that meet all of a jurisdiction’s redistricting criteria, without using race. Selecting, preparing and effectively presenting that expert testimony requires deep familiarity with the case law and with the rapidly evolving methodological debates in the field.

The Legislative Record Matters More Than Ever

Because Callais requires courts to assess whether race was the predominant motivation in redistricting — and whether a compelling interest justified any race-conscious choices — the content and quality of the legislative record can be an important factor in how cases are decided. Structuring public hearings, committee proceedings and staff deliberations can preserve a record that accurately reflects redistricting objectives, while avoiding the kinds of statements that courts have ruled lead to violations of Section 2.

Ongoing Litigation Strategy

For parties with pending Section 2 claims or racial gerrymandering challenges, Callais demands immediate attention. Existing claims must be re-evaluated against the new Gingles preconditions. Expert analyses may need to be revised or supplemented. Litigation strategies that relied on the pre-Callais framework should be reassessed before the next major briefing deadline.

Please contact Mike Hurst, Nick Morisani, Sonya Dickson or any member of the Phelps litigation team with questions or for advice and guidance.