Louisiana is ‘tired' of fighting over its congressional maps. The Supreme Court will review its districts anyway.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments Monday in a years-old, messy legal battle over Louisiana's congressional districts that could have nationwide implications for how states consider race as they draw new lines.
And given the GOP's narrow majority, the high court's decision could be a factor that helps decide control of the House of Representatives after the 2026 election.
The state's briefing at the Supreme Court drips with exasperation: Louisiana was, at first, required by a federal court in 2022 to create a second majority Black district out of the state's six total districts. A group of self-described 'non-African American voters' then sued in 2024, alleging the state violated the Constitution by relying too much on race to meet the first court's demands.
'Louisiana is tired,' state officials told the Supreme Court in December. 'Midway through this decade, neither Louisiana nor its citizens know what congressional map they can call home.'
The case, Louisiana v. Callais, tees up a series of important questions that deal with race and redistricting. The landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 requires that states do not dilute the power of minority voters, a response to decades of post-Civil War efforts – particularly in the South – to limit the political power of African Americans.
And yet the equal protection clause demands that a state cannot draw a map based on race, even if those efforts are intended to ensure compliance with federal law.
Because of that inherent tension, the Supreme Court has tended to give some 'breathing room' to states in drawing their maps. The central question of the case is exactly how much room state lawmakers should have.
Louisiana officials have suggested that the Supreme Court might want to use the case to take federal courts out of the business of deciding racial gerrymanders altogether, just as it withdrew from fights over political gerrymanders in a 2019 decision. But a group of Black plaintiffs that challenged the state's original map are, understandably, opposed to that idea because it would severely limit their ability to challenge future discriminatory maps.
'We would not be at all pleased with that outcome,' said Sarah Brannon, deputy director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Voting Rights Project, which is representing the minority plaintiffs who initially sued. 'It would set a very bad precedent going forward and make it very difficult for civil rights groups, minority voters to bring claims in the future.'
The Supreme Court has, in recent years, slowly chipped away at the power of the Voting Rights Act. But in a stunning decision in 2023, the court appeared to bolster a key provision of the VRA by ordering Alabama to redraw its map to allow for an additional Black majority district. Chief Justice John Roberts, a conservative, penned the opinion for a 5-4 majority, siding with the court's three liberals. Another conservative, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, agreed with the key parts of the holding.
The new district at issue in the case slashes diagonally from Shreveport in the northwest of the state to Baton Rouge in the southeast for some 250 miles to create a district where Black residents make up some 54% of voters – up from about 24% under the old lines.
The non-African American voters slammed the district as a 'sinuous and jagged second majority Black district' that they told the Supreme Court is 'based on racial stereotypes, racially 'balkanizing' a 250-mile swath of Louisiana.'
'Why, in the 2020s, would Louisiana racially balkanize new areas of a State where Black population is flatlining, integration is succeeding, and the record lacks evidence of voting harms to Black voters?' the plaintiffs asked.
Although Black residents make up roughly a third of Louisiana's population, the state had just one Black lawmaker in its six-member US House delegation prior to the initial court ruling that led to a second Black-majority district.
Rep. Cleo Fields, a Democrat, captured the seat in last year's election – adding a second Democrat to the state's delegation. In raw political terms, the Supreme Court's decision could leave Fields in power – or it could force a redrawing of the maps before the 2026 election.
The Biden administration submitted a brief to the Supreme Court that technically supported neither party but that urged the justices to reverse a special three-judge district court that would throw out the current map. Days after taking office, the Trump administration submitted a letter declaring that it had 'reconsidered the government's position' and that the earlier brief 'no longer represents the position of the United States.'
CNN's Tierney Sneed and Fredreka Schouten contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
25 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Kirchner's Ban From Office Marks New Chapter for Argentina
Argentina's top court sidelined former President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner from elections, likely ushering in a new political era in South America's second biggest economy. Just a week after President Javier Milei's arch rival announced a bid in a key midterm race, the Supreme Court banned the opposition leader from public office for life, delivering a major political victory for Milei as he works to convince investors that Argentina is changing. The ruling forces Peronism — the country's dominant political force for decades — to reinvent itself, while leaving Milei without his most emblematic adversary in an increasingly polarized nation.

Los Angeles Times
31 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Amid fears of pending California education cuts, top Trump official says state is ‘at risk'
As concerns heighten among officials and educators about possible pending federal funding cuts to California, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said Tuesday that the state is at risk, but did not elaborate on when a decision would be made or what the cuts could be. McMahon, in a videotaped interview with Bloomberg, was responding to a question about the possible termination of grant funding to California public universities by referencing issues related to Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on gender. President Trump has repeatedly threatened to withhold unspecified federal funding from California because it allows transgender athletes to compete with cisgender athletes in girls' and women's sporting events. 'Well in California I think we saw pretty flagrant violations of Title IX,' McMahon said, 'and that is why this ... focus ... was put on them.... We have, you know, men participating in women's sports, which is clearly against Title IX, and the president has made it very clear that he is definitely going to uphold Title IX.' If the Trump administration did not 'address' violations 'as they occur then it's sort of by acquiescence that it's OK to continue and it's not,' she said. The remarks were made during a Bloomberg event in which McMahon addressed a variety of topics, including the mass Education Department layoffs under her leadership — halted by federal courts and appealed to the Supreme Court — and an ongoing battle with Harvard University. Trump has stripped billions of dollars from Harvard and tried to ban foreign-born students and the university has launched multiple lawsuits in response. Reports, including one Friday by CNN, have emerged in recent days that the Trump administration is preparing to withhold wide swaths of federal funding from the Golden State's universities, scientific researchers and K-12 schools. The California State University and University of California systems already face hundreds of millions of dollars in grant cuts from multiple federal agencies, including the Education and Health and Human Services departments. These cuts too are the subject of litigation, and some have been put on hold by the courts. The possibility of further cuts have alarmed some California legislators. In a letter sent Friday to the administration, Rep. Dave Min (D-Irvine) called talk of cuts 'targeted political vengeance' and said 'any significant move to cut federal funding to California would be outrageous, illegal and set a dangerous precedent. It would also have devastating impacts for our residents, whether they are Democrats, Republicans or independents.' He also raised a constitutional issue. 'Your withholding of funds that have been appropriated would constitute a direct attack on the separation of powers that is at the heart of our democratic republic,' Min wrote. The White House did not immediately respond to a request Tuesday related to McMahon's remarks, but in a statement Friday said that 'no final decisions' had been made on funding cuts. 'No taxpayer should be forced to fund the demise of our country, and that's what California is doing through its lunatic anti-energy, soft-on-crime, pro-child mutilation, and pro-sanctuary policies. The Trump administration is committed to ending this nightmare and restoring the California Dream,' the statement said. 'No final decisions, however, on any potential future action by the Administration have been made, and any discussion suggesting otherwise should be considered pure speculation.' Madison Biedermann, a spokesperson for McMahon, on Tuesday affirmed the last part: No decision had been made. Biedermann said it would be incorrect to interpret McMahon's remarks as confirming imminent cuts. McMahon was restating the department's position: California is at serious risk of losing funds if it does not comply with Trump administration policies, including banning transgender athletes from women's and girls' sports. Biedermann said any reports about the timing or extent of any cuts is, at this point, 'speculation.' To date, she said, California is under investigation but has not been penalized based on its actions. Reports of imminent — but unconfirmed — cuts have appeared in Politico and the Washington Post. Among the areas of funding potentially at risk are the so-called formula funding programs that are approved and mandated by Congress. This includes Title I dollars that the federal government provides to schools to offset the effects of poverty. These funds alone are worth about $2.1 billion a year to California and about $460 million to Los Angeles Unified, the state's largest school system, where about 80% of students have family income low enough to qualify them for a free or reduced-price lunch. Aid for school meals — totaling $363 million to L.A. Unified alone — also is a potential lever of influence for the Trump administration. These dollars are administered through the U.S. Department of Agriculture, outside McMahon's jurisdiction. Another potentially affected funding stream is $1.33 billion annually to offset part of the cost of educating students with disabilities — of which $177 million goes to L.A. Unified. When asked Tuesday about withholding formula funding, McMahon again raised the issue of Title IX compliance. 'I think that is part of what we found with the state of California just blatantly refusing to be in compliance with Title IX regulations,' McMahon said. 'So that is one of the tools and the other options that we have with California and I think it's right that we make them aware that that is a risk that they run.' California officials have defended their policy as consistent with state and federal law, prioritizing rights based on gender identity. California sued the U.S. Justice Department on Monday over its demand last week that local school districts ban transgender youth from competing in sports, arguing the federal agency had overstepped its authority in violation of both state and federal law. Assemblyman Al Muratsuchi (D-Rolling Hills Estates), chair of the California State Assembly's Education Committee, told The Times that he has kept a close eye on the Trump administration's attacks on public education. 'We know that the hardest hit would be our students with special needs and our disabled students,' he said. 'Also, Title I funding for our low-income students is a big concern.' Muratsuchi said that California's 'best defense' against Trump's actions 'is our Constitution and the rule of law.... The president should not have a unilateral power to cut funding appropriated by Congress.' Muratsuchi also stressed the importance of federal funding to the UC and CSU systems. 'To have the federal research funds cut is tremendously impactful,' he said. The Times' Washington bureau chief Michael Wilner and Bloomberg News contributed to this report.


Newsweek
an hour ago
- Newsweek
Ciattarelli and Sherrill Face Off in NJ Governor's Race: What Polls Say
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. New Jersey voters hit the polls on Tuesday and cast their ballots in the state's primary races ahead of this year's gubernatorial election. Jack Ciattarelli, a former New Jersey state representative and one-time critic turned supporter of President Donald Trump, won the Republican Party's nomination for governor. On the Democratic side, U.S. Representative Mikie Sherrill snagged the party's nomination. With primaries in the rearview mirror, New Jersey's gubernatorial race kicks into high gear, with Sherrill pulling out all the stops to keep the governor's seat in Democrats' hands and Ciattarelli leveraging Trump's backing to flip it red. Newsweek reached out to Ciattarelli and Sherrill's campaigns for comment via LinkedIn and email, respectively, on Tuesday. Why It Matters New Jersey is among only two states holding gubernatorial elections this year, alongside Virginia, meaning November's election in the Garden State will be one of the first and earliest tests of Trump's agenda. With New Jersey's incumbent Democratic governor, Phil Murphy, being term-limited, both parties see the contest as a crucial bellwether, especially after a competitive 2021 governor's election in which Ciattarelli lost to Murphy by a narrow margin. Supporters await New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli at his watch party on November 2, 2021, in Bridgewater, New Jersey. (Photo by) Supporters await New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli at his watch party on November 2, 2021, in Bridgewater, New Jersey. (Photo by) What To Know According to the Associated Press, Ciattarelli clinched the GOP nomination for governor at 8:17 p.m. ET Tuesday and Sherrill was projected to win the Democratic nomination at 8:39 p.m. New Jersey has voted for a Democrat in every presidential election since 1988. Although Trump lost the state in November, he significantly narrowed the gap between the two parties, losing to then-Vice President and Democratic nominee Kamala Harris by less than 6 percentage points. As Newsweek reported this month, it was the best showing by a GOP presidential nominee in two decades. By comparison, Joe Biden won New Jersey by 16 percentage points in the 2020 election. Ciattarelli, who won Trump's endorsement in May, also got some good news in a recent poll published shortly before Tuesday's primaries. According to SurveyUSA, Ciattarelli and Sherrill are viewed favorably by a near-equal percentage of New Jersey voters. The SurveyUSA poll found that 40 percent of Garden State voters have a favorable view of Ciattarelli, while 41 percent view Sherrill favorably. But there's a larger gap between the two candidates when it comes to their unfavorables, with 29 percent of voters having an unfavorable view of Sherrill, compared to 36 percent who have an unfavorable opinion of Ciattarelli. What People Are Saying The Democratic National Committee, in an emailed statement to Newsweek from Chair Ken Martin: "Congratulations to New Jersey Democratic gubernatorial nominee Rep. Mikie Sherrill and to New Jersey Democrats up and down the ballot who are stepping up to fight for families across the Garden State. "The DNC is all hands on deck to ensure the Governor's office and Assembly remain blue in November. We will do everything in our power to unite the party and defeat Republican extremists like Jack Ciattarelli who want to rubber stamp Donald Trump's cost-hiking agenda and sell out working-class Americans. In 2025, Democrats have overwhelmingly won and overperformed in special and off-year elections. Concluding, Martin said, "We'll continue that trend in New Jersey by organizing in every corner of the state, investing strategically, and working with our allies on the ground to elect more Democrats who will stand up to the Trump disaster and deliver for working families." Sherrill's campaign said in a statement, in part: "Let's be clear about the two visions in this race: I am ready to stand up to an extreme Washington that doesn't have New Jersey's best interests at heart. Jack has already surrendered to them. It's our duty to meet the moment and live up to our state's motto of liberty and prosperity, because a Trump yes man like Jack Ciattarelli in Trenton will threaten it all." She added: "While Jack is for Trump, I am for New Jersey. A New Jersey where housing is affordable so our kids can afford to live here, middle-class families can buy a home, and our seniors can afford to stay. A New Jersey where we finally take control of our energy future, and slash the cost of utilities. A New Jersey where a woman's right to an abortion is non-negotiable, and we respect the rule of law, due process, and the Constitution." Trump wrote on Truth Social over the weekend: "The Great State of New Jersey has a very important Primary coming up on Tuesday. Get Out and Vote for Jack Ciattarelli, who has my Complete and Total Endorsement! His Opponents are going around saying they have my Endorsement, which is not true, I don't even know who they are! We can't play games when it comes to Elections, and New Jersey is a very important State that we must WIN. The whole World is watching. Vote for Jack Ciattarelli to, MAKE NEW JERSEY GREAT AGAIN!" What Happens Next The general election in New Jersey's governor's race is on November 4. In addition to Sherrill and Ciattarelli, five third-party or independent candidates are also running for the seat.