The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to intervene in a dispute involving Louisiana’s new congressional district map, a development announced by legal expert Amy Howe on SCOTUSblog. Despite outcry from civil rights groups and voters who argue that the map — drawn by Republican legislators and approved despite Governor John Bel Edwards’ veto — violates Section 2 of the federal voting rights act due to underrepresentation of the state’s Black population, the Supreme Court’s decision leaves in place an order by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit cancelling a hearing that had been intended to create a new map.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson voiced her agreement with the court’s decision, but was quick to point out that this did not reflect an endorsement of the appeals court’s order. She emphasized the need for the dispute to be resolved before the 2024 elections, keeping in line with the Supreme Court’s usual practice.
In June 2022, the district court initially attempted to block Louisiana from utilizing its newly-drawn congressional map, ordering the creation of a new map that included a second majority-Black district. However, on June 28, 2022, the Supreme Court issued a hold on the district court’s order while a similar voting rights case from Alabama was considered. This effectively allowed Louisiana to continue with the disputed map in the 2022 elections.
However, following a decision on Allen v. Milligan in June 2023, the Supreme Court lifted the stay in the Louisiana case, suggesting that Alabama’s map likely violated the Voting Rights Act. Unfortunately for those opposing the Louisiana map, on September 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit issued a writ of mandamus, directing the district court to cancel a scheduled hearing intended for the creation of a new map.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision to refrain from intervening came in response to the challengers’ attempt, on September 30, to appeal this writ of mandamus. While the 5th Circuit stipulated that the district court should have first given the legislature a chance to comply with its ruling, Justice Jackson expressed hope that the delay would only last until the Louisiana legislature had sufficient time to consider alternative maps that comply with the Voting Rights Act.
From a broader legal perspective, this case now stands as a notable development in the ongoing tension between state rights and federal oversight in determining voting boundaries, and underscores the Supreme Court’s complex and often critical role in these disputes.