Oral Argument on racial gerrymandering: Louisiana v. Callais

Video Description

Oral argument audio (including transcript) of case [24-109] *Louisiana v. Callais* argued at the Supreme Court of the United States on Oct 15, 2025. *More information about the case:* Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/2024/24-109/ Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/24-109.html Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-109 Argued on Mar 24, 2025. *Appellant:* Louisiana *Appellee:* Phillip Callais, et al. *Advocates:* - Janai Nelson (for appellants Press Robinson, et al.) - J. Benjamin Aguiñaga (for appellant Louisiana) - Edward D. Greim (for appellees) - Hashim M. Mooppan (for United States, as amicus curiae, in support of appellees) *Chapters* 0:00:00 Janai Nelson 0:46:38 J. Benjamin Aguiñaga 1:19:42 Edward D. Greim 1:39:36 Hashim M. Mooppan 2:24:39 Rebuttal: Janai Nelson *Facts of the case (from oyez.org)* This case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, specifically focusing on District 6, alleging that the map is an impermissible racial gerrymander. The map was created in response to a previous lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin, where plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. To address these issues, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new map (Senate Bill 8) that included a second majority-Black district. However, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that this new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. A three-judge panel concluded that District 6 of the new map did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading the court to issue an injunction against using this map in future elections. *Question* Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act?