Supreme Court Considers Ending Race-Based Redistricting in Louisiana
The Supreme Court heard arguments Wednesday in a high-stakes case over Louisiana’s congressional map, where the Trump administration and the state are urging the justices to eliminate the second majority-Black district and restrict the role of race in redistricting.
“Race-based redistricting is fundamentally contrary to our Constitution,” Louisiana Attorney General Elizabeth Murrill wrote in the state’s Supreme Court filing.
The case reflects a broader conservative push to restore fairness in elections by ensuring that legislative districts are drawn based on geography and communities of interest, rather than rigid racial quotas. Conservatives argue that mandating race as the primary factor in districting diminishes the principle of individual merit and universal citizenship, and allows courts to substitute their judgment for that of elected state legislatures.
This mid-decade redistricting battle comes after President Trump encouraged Republican-led states, including Texas, to redraw congressional maps in a way that reflects voter distribution and political realities, helping preserve GOP representation in the House. A ruling in favor of Louisiana could have far-reaching implications for state legislative and local districts nationwide.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a central figure in the debate, has long expressed skepticism toward race-based districting. In 2006, he called the practice “a sordid business,” and in 2013, he led the Court in scaling back parts of the Voting Rights Act that mandated pre-approval of election changes in states with historical discrimination. Roberts has emphasized that laws must respond to present conditions, not rely on racial assumptions from decades past.
Currently, Louisiana’s map includes a second majority-Black district, drawn after a 2023 Supreme Court ruling in a similar Alabama case. White voters argued that the district was drawn predominantly on race rather than political or geographic factors, a claim a lower court agreed with—prompting the current review.
The conservative perspective is that elections should be determined by voters, not by mandated racial engineering. By curbing race-based redistricting, the Court would empower state legislatures to draw districts in a manner that reflects current population trends and community interests, rather than creating districts based primarily on racial identity.
While civil rights advocates warn that eliminating such districts could reduce minority representation, Republicans argue that the Voting Rights Act already protects against discrimination without imposing rigid racial quotas. Critics of the current system note that race-based districts often result in oddly-shaped “snake-like” districts that prioritize race over geography and community cohesion.
The Supreme Court’s decision could redefine the landscape of American elections. A ruling limiting federal court oversight of redistricting absent clear, intentional discrimination would restore power to state legislatures and remove decades of judicial overreach, a move widely welcomed by conservatives advocating for fair, merit-based elections.
The Trump administration’s involvement signals the stakes: ensuring that states can manage their own electoral maps without federal interference aligns with a broader Republican vision of strengthening state sovereignty and protecting voter choice.
