Mark Jackson
The fight to delay the Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting ruling has ended before it began.
On May 6, the Supreme Court denied Press Robinson plaintiffs’ motion to recall the judgment in Louisiana v. Callais, the blockbuster case that struck down Louisiana’s race-based congressional map. The denial came without recorded dissent and followed an unusual procedural timeline: it arrived one day after the motion was filed and two days after the Court issued its ruling immediately rather than waiting the standard 32 days.
The sequence moved quickly. The Supreme Court ruled on April 29, affirming a lower court’s decision that Louisiana’s congressional map violated the Equal Protection Clause. By May 4, the judgment had been transmitted to the lower court. By May 6, the attempt to recall it was denied.
Court reporter Josh Gerstein documented the procedural path: After the Court affirmed the case on April 29, the Callais appellees filed an application that same day seeking immediate issuance of the judgment under Supreme Court Rule 45.3. The rule typically allows time for rehearing petitions but permits shortening the period. On May 4, the application was granted and the judgment issued that same day. Press Robinson, et al., filed a motion to recall on May 5—a request the Court denied on May 6.
Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill celebrated the immediate-effect order before the recall motion was even decided.
The underlying merits decision, affirmed by the Supreme Court on April 29, held that Louisiana’s congressional map created under SB8—a race-based district—violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court ruled Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to establish an additional majority-minority district because the state lacked a compelling interest for such redistricting. The ruling treated the map as an unconstitutional racial gerrymander and remanded the case for further proceedings.
In a 6-3 decision authored by Justice Samuel Alito and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Clarence Thomas, Justice Neil Gorsuch, Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett—while Justice Elena Kagan dissented with Justice Sonia Sotomayor and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson—the Court narrowed how Section 2 claims interact with race-based mapmaking. The ruling clarified compliance with Section 2 can be a compelling interest only when the statute, correctly applied, actually requires the districting choice.
Louisiana’s practical consequences now move swiftly. The struck-down map created a second majority-Black congressional district critical to shaping the state’s current partisan balance in the U.S. House delegation. If Louisiana’s Republican-led legislature draws a remedial map that removes or significantly alters this district, it could strengthen GOP prospects for picking up another seat in the 2026 election cycle. The Court’s immediate judgment grants lawmakers more time before next year’s races—including candidate recruitment, campaign planning, and voter outreach—without the usual procedural delays.
While a replacement map would still undergo remedial proceedings and face potential legal challenges, the Supreme Court has removed the immediate procedural delay sought by the Robinson plaintiffs. Louisiana Republicans now possess critical time to reshape their congressional map ahead of the 2026 elections. LDF President Janai Nelson, whose organization represented the plaintiffs, criticized the Court’s procedural speed. However, the docket shows the plaintiffs had not indicated intent to seek reconsideration on the merits—a point the Court deemed unnecessary for immediate action.
