U.S. Supreme Court Orders Immediate Issuance of Judgment in Louisiana Case
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to fast-track its Louisiana redistricting mandate, bypassing the standard 32-day waiting period and clearing the way for the state to redraw congressional maps before the 2026 midterm elections.
On April 29, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that Louisiana’s 2024 election map, which created a second majority-Black congressional district, violated the Constitution.
The appellees in the case, identified as Callais, asked the Court to expedite the process. They argued that issuing the judgment immediately would allow the District Court to “oversee an orderly process” if further judicial action is required.
Louisiana, listed as the appellant, did not oppose the request. While another group of appellants, referred to as the Robinson parties, objected to the expedited issuance, they did not indicate any plans to seek a rehearing before the Supreme Court.
The decision requires plaintiffs challenging redistricting maps to prove intentional racial discrimination, allowing states—including those with histories of discrimination against Black voters—to defend maps that dilute minority voting power by citing partisan advantage as their motive. Black voters are approximately one-third of Louisiana’s population.
In an unsigned order issued Monday evening, the court granted a request from Louisiana voters who successfully challenged the state map to immediately send the case back to lower courts. Typically, the Supreme Court clerk waits 32 days before transmitting opinions to give losing parties time to request reconsideration. The expedited mandate removes one procedural obstacle to creating a new congressional map before the May primary elections.
Republican Governor Jeff Landry postponed Louisiana’s House primary election, which had early voting scheduled to begin Saturday, to allow the Republican-controlled legislature time to redraw congressional maps. The state Legislature is expected to begin the redistricting process this week.
Justice Jackson dissented from the expedited order, arguing that the Court’s April 29 decision “has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana.” She noted that by the time the Court released its ruling striking down Louisiana’s congressional map, some voters had already mailed back their ballots for the May 16 primary election.
Jackson criticized the majority for choosing to “influence its implementation” rather than remaining neutral, calling the expedited issuance “tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map.” She pointed out that the Court has granted applications to issue judgment forthwith over a party’s objection only twice in the last 25 years.
The exchange grew particularly contentious when Jackson accused the Court of abandoning its principles, writing: “And just like that, those principles give way to power.” She argued the Court was “unshackl[ing] itself” from constraints like the Purcell principle, which the Court had invoked just five months earlier to prevent federal courts from intervening in active primary campaigns.
Alito responded by calling Jackson’s charge that the decision represents “an unprincipled use of power” a “groundless and utterly irresponsible charge.”
Alito dismissed Jackson’s arguments as “trivial at best” and “baseless and insulting,” contending that strict adherence to procedural rules would itself create “the appearance of partiality (by running out the clock) on behalf of those who may find it politically advantageous to have the election occur under the unconstitutional map.”
