Jackson Objects as Supreme Court Uses Gerrymandering Ruling To Guide Lower Courts

Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson is pushing back against the U.S. Supreme Court after the justices used a recent redistricting decision to send a clear message to lower courts about how far race-based district drawing can go under federal law.

Jackson, appointed by former President Joe Biden, objected after the Court applied its reasoning from the Louisiana v. Callais ruling to a separate Mississippi case, sending that matter back to the U.S. District Court “for further consideration.”

The move followed the Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, where the justices held that Louisiana’s congressional map crossed constitutional lines by relying too heavily on race in the creation of a second majority-Black district.

Jackson dissented from the Court’s handling of the Mississippi matter, arguing that the Louisiana ruling did not address the specific legal question in that case.

“This case presents only the question of Section 2’s private enforceability, which our decision in Louisiana v. Callais … did not address,” Jackson wrote, referencing Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

“Thus, I see no basis for vacating the lower court’s judgment,” she added.

The Louisiana case centered on whether the state’s 2024 congressional map, which created a second majority-Black district, amounted to an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Lower courts had previously ordered Louisiana to draw that district in an attempt to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits states from diluting minority voting strength.

But the Supreme Court concluded that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district. The justices agreed that while compliance with the Voting Rights Act can sometimes justify redistricting decisions, it did not justify Louisiana’s use of race in this instance.

Writing for the majority, Justice Samuel Alito stated that “because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.”

The ruling marks a major constitutional victory for equal protection principles and a setback for left-wing legal organizations that have relied heavily on Section 2 litigation to influence congressional maps across the South.

The Trump administration and Louisiana state officials challenged the revised map, arguing that it violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection by elevating race above traditional redistricting principles.

The decision could have broad political consequences. According to reports, Republican-led legislatures may now have more room to redraw congressional boundaries in states where previous maps were shaped by aggressive interpretations of Section 2.

Some voting rights organizations aligned with Democrats have warned that narrowing or limiting Section 2 could affect as many as 19 congressional districts, potentially strengthening Republican advantages in future House elections.

“However, it’s not clear if red states will be able to seize on the Supreme Court’s decision in time to significantly impact the 2026 midterms, in which Democrats are favored to retake the House of Representatives,” the New York Post reported.

The ruling could allow mapmakers to place greater emphasis on traditional redistricting criteria and partisan geography rather than race-based mandates imposed through litigation.

Fair Fight Action and the Black Voters Matter Fund have warned that if Section 2 is weakened or invalidated, Republicans could be better positioned to maintain control of the House for years. Research cited by voting rights groups has identified 27 congressional seats where Republicans could benefit under the current legal and political landscape, including 19 tied directly to possible changes involving Section 2.

The Supreme Court’s decision is expected to trigger renewed redistricting battles across multiple states ahead of November’s elections.

The ruling also comes as state courts continue to scrutinize Democratic-backed redistricting efforts. On Friday, the Virginia Supreme Court struck down a Democrat-inspired congressional map that would have given the party four of the five seats currently held by Republicans in a politically divided state.

For conservatives, the Supreme Court’s message is straightforward: the Constitution does not permit states to sort voters primarily by race, even when activists attempt to justify it through the Voting Rights Act.