HUGE: Supreme Court Rules Louisiana’s House Map an ‘Unconstitutional Racial Gerrymander,’ “SNAKED” Across the The State

The Supreme Court just ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s race-drawn congressional district was unconstitutional. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana congressional district, specifically described as a “snake” which meandered over 200 miles to connect metropolitan areas.

Alito rewrote the Gingles framework to require partisan controls before racial gerrymandering claims can proceed. Democrats have used Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to draw race-based districts for decades. SCOTUS just made that significantly harder to do. (Amuse)

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s Majority Opinion Striking Down Louisiana’s Second Majority-Black Congressional District: “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8. That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander, and its use would violate the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.”

🚨 In a 6-3 vote, the Supreme Court strikes down Louisiana's new congressional map that added a second majority-black district, holding that it constitutes a racial gerrymander.

The Court narrows its previous interpretation of the Voting Rights Act. pic.twitter.com/rqy3POxauJ

— SCOTUS Wire (@scotus_wire) April 29, 2026

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito’s Majority Opinion Striking Down Louisiana’s Second Majority-Black Congressional District: “Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State's… pic.twitter.com/AOQMx2PpE8

— RedWave Press (@RedWavePress) April 29, 2026

Justice Alito's opinion rightly strikes down the racial gerrymandering scheme at play in Louisiana v. Callais.

It incorporates significant textual analysis — and it does so methodically.

And it sticks to precedent, while reasonably revising it.

But Justice Thomas's plain… pic.twitter.com/njOWIIHNU4

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) April 29, 2026

Supreme Court calls Louisiana’s House map an ‘unconstitutional racial gerrymander’

By: April 29, 2026

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision along partisan lines, ruled that Louisiana’s 2024 election map, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, was “an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

Although the court kept Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act intact, Wednesday’s decision all but guts the landmark law that came out of the Civil Rights Movement and protected the collective voting power of racial minorities when political maps are redrawn.

It isn’t yet clear how the decision will affect November’s midterms. Primaries are well underway in most states.

Once considered the jewel in the crown of the civil rights movement, the Voting Rights Act has been largely dismembered since 2013 by the increasingly conservative Supreme Court. The major exception was a decision just two years ago that upheld the section of the law aimed at ensuring that minority voters are not shut out of the process of drawing new congressional district lines.

At issue in the case was the redistricting map drawn by the Louisiana legislature after the decennial Census. Following years of litigation, the state, with a 30% Black population, first fought and then finally agreed to draw a second majority-Black district. Two of the state’s six House members are African American.

Normally, that would have been the end of the case, but a self-described group of “non-African-American voters” intervened after the new maps were drawn up to object to the legislature’s redistricting.

The Trump administration supported them, contending that the Black voters should not have gotten a second majority-minority district.

On Friday, the court agreed.

“Correctly understood, Section 2 does not impose liability at odds with the Constitution, and it should not have imposed liability on Louisiana for its 2022 map,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “Compliance with Section 2 thus could not justify the State’s use of race-based redistricting here.”