Louisiana v. Callais SCOTUS VRA Oral Arguments today

7,791 Views | 88 Replies | Last: 5 mo ago by Oyster DuPree
will25u
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:28a, 10/15/25
Could be YUGE!

Louisiana v. Callais
https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx

Quote:
Louisiana v. Callais is a landmark redistricting case before the Supreme Court that could redefine the legality of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Act (VRA). The case involves a challenge to Louisiana's congressional map, which was redrawn in 2024 to include a second majority-Black district after a court found the previous map likely violated the VRA.

The Supreme Court and reargument
  • Initial argument in 2025: The Supreme Court first heard oral arguments on the case in March 2025. The original question was whether the lower court was correct to find that the new map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
  • No decision, ordered reargument: On the last day of the 2025 term, the Court ordered reargument for its new term, starting in October 2025.
  • Refined question: The Court's order asked for new briefing on a more fundamental question: "Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments".
  • Central question for reargument: The key issue is whether the intentional creation of majority-minority districtseven when done to comply with the VRAis always an unconstitutional use of race under the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments.


    • We are way past the time to remove Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Voting doesn't need to take into account race when states redistrict. Yes, gerrymandering is real. Yes gerrymandering is political. But racial quotas in redistricting is past its prime.

    Reply Quote
    2 edits
    flown-the-coop
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to will25u • 7:33a, 10/15/25
    Thanks for the update and thread. To be clear and I think you agree, racial quotas of any kind are past their prime and are inherently… racist.
    Reply Quote
    Aggie Jurist
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to flown-the-coop • 7:36a, 10/15/25
    Quote:
    Thanks for the update and thread. To be clear and I think you agree, racial quotas of any kind are past their prime and are inherently… racist.

    Yes they are. Racial quotas were taken out in SFA v. Harvard and I'm hopeful they suffer the same fate here.
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    8:03a, 10/15/25
    Audio should be here at 9a CDT.

    https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/live.aspx
    Reply Quote
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    8:11a, 10/15/25
    "We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:07a, 10/15/25
    It's live at link I posted above.
    Reply Quote
    Juan Lee Pettimore
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:13a, 10/15/25
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.
    Reply Quote
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Juan Lee Pettimore • 9:16a, 10/15/25
    Juan Lee Pettimore said:
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.


    This is oral arguments and doubt you see a ruling until January
    "We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
    Reply Quote
    aezmvp
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:38a, 10/15/25
    Anyone have a summary of Roberts or Barrett's questions? I definitely think this is getting overturned.
    Reply Quote
    Teslag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Dirty_Mike&the_boys • 9:41a, 10/15/25
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
    Juan Lee Pettimore said:
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.


    This is oral arguments and doubt you see a ruling until January


    Does that give time to redraw any maps before 2026?
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Rapier108
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Juan Lee Pettimore • 9:42a, 10/15/25
    Juan Lee Pettimore said:
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.

    Yes, it was previously argued last term, but they decided 8-1 to rehear the case. Only Thomas didn't vote to rehear it.

    If they do strike down forced, race based gerrymandering, then it will cost the Democrats numerous House seats.
    "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
    Reply Quote
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Teslag • 9:43a, 10/15/25
    Teslag said:
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
    Juan Lee Pettimore said:
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.


    This is oral arguments and doubt you see a ruling until January


    Does that give time to redraw any maps before 2022?


    I'd be willing to bet that those maps have already been redrawn for a year. They'd have to be submitted and voted on
    "We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
    Reply Quote
    flown-the-coop
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to Teslag • 9:44a, 10/15/25
    Teslag said:
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys said:
    Juan Lee Pettimore said:
    This is a re-hearing right? What are we thinking the Court is going to do here? This would eliminate like 40 House seats for the Democrats.


    This is oral arguments and doubt you see a ruling until January


    Does that give time to redraw any maps before 2022?

    My desk calendar says it is too late.
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:45a, 10/15/25
    Supposedly if this is struck down, could be a net gain of +19 Rep. House seats.
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:47a, 10/15/25
    I don't know enough about this to really know which way this is going. The plaintiff seemingly is answering all questions with no real issues, but I could be wrong.
    Reply Quote
    Teslag
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to will25u • 9:48a, 10/15/25
    will25u said:
    Supposedly if this is struck down, could be a net gain of +19 Rep. House seats.


    Goodbye Ghetto Jasmine
    Reply Quote
    fc2112
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to will25u • 9:52a, 10/15/25
    will25u said:
    I don't know enough about this to really know which way this is going. The plaintiff seemingly is answering all questions with no real issues, but I could be wrong.

    Plaintiff's attorney, Janai Nelson, is excellent
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Juan Lee Pettimore
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to will25u • 9:52a, 10/15/25
    will25u said:
    Supposedly if this is struck down, could be a net gain of +19 Rep. House seats.


    Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was under the impression that it would impact significantly more than that.
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:53a, 10/15/25
    Thread... I know this guy is an Election guy, not sure how knowledgeable in these proceedings.


    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    9:56a, 10/15/25
    Defendant Louisiana is getting interrupted a lot by one of the liberal judges(maybe Sotomayor? ETA: KAGAN).
    Reply Quote
    2 edits
    Maroon Dawn
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:07a, 10/15/25
    SCOTUS needs to follow the law and rule that intentionally violating the equal protection clause to make amends for past wrongs is not valid.

    No more letting Dems gave safe seats in GOP majority states. We deserve to gerrymander Dems totally out of our states like they do to us in theirs.
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:10a, 10/15/25
    ... They will not let the lawyer from LA speak. Always interrupting.
    Reply Quote
    aezmvp
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:25a, 10/15/25
    Justice Jackson "Just trust me."

    LOLOLOL
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:30a, 10/15/25
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:33a, 10/15/25
    These are the two districts that had to be drawn based on VRA.

    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:38a, 10/15/25
    Reply Quote
    Dirty_Mike&the_boys
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:45a, 10/15/25
    The three blue flamers on the SCOTUS are hanging onto the race card with a death grip.
    "We're going to turn this red Prius into a soup kitchen!"
    Reply Quote
    will25u
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    10:51a, 10/15/25
    I am thinking there is a decent chance Section 2 of VRA gets struck down. Not based on this tweet, but just in general in listening to most of the proceedings today. 5-4 or 6-3. The liberal justices were up in arms about this and kept interrupting and carrying on. So to me, seems they are a bit worried and needed to fire every bullet they had to try and keep this from being struck down.

    Reply Quote
    2 edits
    Cru
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    11:41a, 10/15/25
    Reply Quote
    dvldog
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    11:42a, 10/15/25
    Reply Quote
    dvldog
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    11:44a, 10/15/25
    n/m - already posted
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Rapier108
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    11:45a, 10/15/25
    Jackson has surpassed Sotomayor as the dumbest person on the Supreme Court.

    But Sotomayor is still desperately fighting to regain the title.
    "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without blood shed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." - Sir Winston Churchill
    Reply Quote
    boulderaggie
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    11:52a, 10/15/25
    Wow. This is why the educational system, from beginning on, matters.
    Reply Quote
    1 edit
    Gaeilge
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    12:06p, 10/15/25


    Quote:
    Louisiana v. Callais (VRA CASE) Summary Post:

    Here are my thoughts on the oral arguments today. Boy was that a LONG oral argument, one of the longer ones I think for a while. See the quoted thread if you want my play by play while I listened.

    The length indicates to me that this is likely to be a decision where something changes. The liberal justices were HAMMERING race needing to be used and I do think that indicates their level of concern that Section 2 of the VRA could be reduced/eliminated.

    From the arguments today, you had basically 3 clear votes in eliminating Section 2 (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch), 3 against (Kagan, Sotomayor, KBJ) and 3 figuring out the details of what to do (Kavanaugh, Barrett, Roberts).

    Kavanaugh seemed to be on the side of reduction in some way, how far remains to be seen. I do think he leaned towards ending how Section 2 of the VRA is being applied, but does that mean altogether or with another sort of test?

    Barrett asked a few questions, but very very technical ones that didn't indicate to me at all how she would vote. But something to remember is that she voted with the conservative minority in the recent Alabama case, although that also did not directly address the merits of race and map drawing.

    Roberts was purposefully just being the chief today, managing the play clock.

    Bottom line: My belief in listening to all of them is that there will be a majority (either 5-4 or 6-3) in at least reducing how Section 2 of the VRA is applied by courts to states. It could be that the court completely avoids addressing Section 2's constitutionality and just says basically "it's time is up, no more remedy is needed".

    Something around there seems where this court is going.

    Now here is the kicker politically: does that mean all states can redraw their maps? And does this decision come out soon or does it come out in June/July?

    If this opinion is released in June, then likely no states can apply it to 2026. But if it is release in January, then some states could.

    We will just have to wait and see.

    A long morning, but that was fun for me. Thank you to all who followed along and my apologies if I didn't get to your comments.

    Reply Quote
    Ozzy Osbourne
    User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
    How long do you want to ignore this user?
    24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
    In reply to will25u • 12:14p, 10/15/25
    will25u said:


    Anytime you hear "justice" used by a lib replace it with "Marxism".

    Environmental justice
    Reproductive justice
    Racial justice
    Etc
    Reply Quote
    Last Page
    Page 1 of 3 ▼
     
    ×
    subscribe Verify your student status
    See Subscription Benefits
    Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.