Below is my column in the Hill on the decision in Louisiana v. Callais and the false narrative that the Supreme Court majority was motivated by the midterm elections. The case barring racial gerrymandering was the capstone of years of opinions from figures from Chief Justice John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and others to restore a colorblind constitution.
Here is the column:
The Supreme Court’s decision in Louisiana v. Callais, barring racial gerrymandering, has many on the left feigning vapors, despite the predictions of many of us that this result was likely.
While figures such as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) declared that the court itself has been “gerrymandered” to rig the upcoming elections, this decision is actually the culmination of decades of jurisprudence by various justices — particularly Chief Justice John Roberts.
Indeed, the decision will cement the legacy of the Roberts Court in moving the country toward a colorblind system of laws.
Like most Americans, Roberts abhors racial discrimination in any form. He holds the quaint idea that when the drafters of the 14th Amendment barred discrimination on the basis of race, they meant it. This is why, in 2006, Roberts famously wrote, “It is a sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Roberts sees no difference between such discrimination when it disfavors one or another race. It is all a sordid business, and he has spent decades writing eloquent arguments for the court to abandon its conflicted and hypocritical approach to racial discrimination.
For example, in 2003, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the court divided five to four on whether to uphold racial admissions criteria used to achieve “diversity” in a class at the University of Michigan Law School. However, in her opinion with the majority, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor stated that she “expects that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”
Few of us could understand how O’Connor found a type of expiration date on permissible racial criteria in the Constitution.
Throughout that period, however, certain justices held firm that there is a bright-line rule against such racial criteria. That includes the author of the court’s Callais decision, Justice Samuel Alito, but also Roberts, who in 2007, put it succinctly: “The way to stop discriminating on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”
One can certainly disagree with this interpretation and the low tolerance for racial criteria. However, this had nothing to do with the midterm elections. It is the result of dozens of opinions building up to this point.
From college admissions to gerrymandering, the court has created the bright line that figures like Roberts have long sought. In doing so, they have moved this country closer to a colorblind jurisprudence than at any time in our history.
The Biden administration was found repeatedly to have violated the Constitution through racial discrimination in federal programs. Democratic leaders have fought this trend and have pledged to reverse these decisions. Some even demand that Democrats pack the Court with a liberal majority as soon as they retake power.
Last year, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services that whites cannot be placed under additional burdens when bringing discrimination lawsuits.
Much of the coverage of the Callais decision is long on rhetoric and short on substance. The court did not “gut” the Voting Rights Act. It also did not strike down Section 2 of the act. Rather, the court held that neither the act nor the Constitution gives legislators authority to manipulate districts so as to effectively guarantee the race of the elected representatives — any race.
For decades, the courts have faced endless litigation over district configurations designed to elect minority representatives. It is a system that gave candidates an advantage based solely on their race. The court held that such racial gerrymandering is unlawful. The Voting Rights Act will now be read to prevent intentional racial discrimination. Courts will still bar any districts designed “to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race.”
That does not mean that racial discrimination has been eliminated in our nation, or that we do not need to commit ourselves wholly to its eradication. The stain of slavery and segregation remains with us, as does the lingering scourge of racial prejudice. African Americans and other minorities still face invidious discrimination that cannot be tolerated in our system. We still have much work to be done.
In the area of voting rights, the courts have and will continue to strike down any rules designed to suppress or block minority voters.
Despite this ongoing struggle with racism, there are reasons to be hopeful. As the Rev. Martin Luther King put it, “The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.” Non-whites are now powerful players in American politics. White voters are expected to be a minority in this country within two decades.
We have now elected a black president and a black vice president. Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (who declared the Court “illegitimate” after the Callais opinion) expects to be the next Speaker of the House of Representatives.
This progress was hard-fought, and both the Voting Rights Act and the Civil Rights Act played important roles in achieving greater racial diversity in our society.
And the Callais decision is also part of that progress. We are moving into a new era where racial criteria and discrimination are neither rationalized nor tolerated. There is now reason to hope that we will indeed end “this sordid business, this divvying us up by race.”
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.“
Bottom Line:
Some leaders of both parties are highly disloyal to their Oath of Office.
The solution is not to compete for disloyalty, but for leaders of both parties to start being more loyal to their Oath of Office.
For example, when Bush officials violated Ronald Reagan’s torture treaty outlawing torture, blacklisting-torture and cruel treatment. Every president and every Congress since then should have enacted reforms outlawing that disloyalty to the United States and its constitutional rule of law.
“Employment Tampering” is the most evil ungodly form of torture still happening for more than 25 years and it appears every FBI and DHS Director has perpetrated these crimes that violate their Oath of Office. Justified by war, so they are war crimes.
One fact many civil rights experts ignore, is that Martin Luther King, Jr. was largely successful because J. Edgar Hoover (the most disloyal FBI official in American history) couldn’t successfully destroy MLK using “Employment Tampering”.
Most Americans aren’t preachers, employed by a congregation. So the FBI and DHS can destroy anyone they please using “Employment Tampering”.
Congress has known about the ungodly evils of “Employment Tampering” since John Ashcroft got severely reprimanded by a panel of federal judges abusing the federal “Material Witness Statute”.
Congress has done nothing in over 25 years to clearly outlaw “Employment Tampering” by the FBI, DHS, DOJ and any other agency. Nothing in over 25 years.
are elections in states with unconstitutional racially gerrymandered districts certifiable or are those election results automatically null and void? Bueller…anyone…anyone?
Does this apportionment issue harald back to Baker v. Carr ,1961 and 62? The language contiguous and compact speaks loudly. These requirements fight back at gerrymandering period for political advantage. Using race in part or whole is prevented by equality in voting, one man one vote.
Gerrymandering has been illegal dating back to 1962 for any reason in reality-based thinking. The Warren Court must have had a few math types.
Presumably some of the current Justices were hoping for a 32 day grace period to roll through the gerrymandered districts 1 more time. They lost. States should be following contiguous and compact in reality. imo
Idk the answer to your question.
The genesis of the argument begins with a decision in Thornburg v Gingles which took place in Gaston co. North Carolina. I can find little reference to the original litigants or their specific briefs. I know Judge Gingles was a highly regarded Judge in Gaston Co and was present for the Supreme Court’s original arguments and decision. A reading of that decision might make this decision clearer for us all.
Ok, I’ll look it up. The Warren court 1962, Baker v. Carr has happened. The gerrymander is malapportionment as states jump on board. Contiguous and compact
If a political party can not win elections based on their policies, then they must resort to un-Constitutional methods — such as racial preferences, tacky election day rules etc.
Looking at you Democrats.
Isn’t true problem the policies and not the race nor color? The truth is multiculturalism doesn’t produce what is expected. It merely produces a dominant race or color by supplanting a previous culture. The American culture is supplanted. It’ll limp along through segregation at the state level but not for posterity.
I appreciated Charles Mountbatten Windsor’s visit as a sort of farewell at 250. It’s a cultural genocide so inhale deeply and salute the founders.
Get on with it…
The numerous voices declaring apocalypse over last week’s modification of Sec. 2 of the VRA always fail to mention that multiple attempts to restore the VRA to its original intent have been made in many Congresses. The John Lewis Voting Rights Bill has never been able to get passed. Those bills were in direct response to Justice Alito’s dare to Congress in Shelby to finally do something about fixing a very out of date and defective law. Also to Chief Justice Roberts’s doubling down on the message by noting that the elimination of Sec. 5 preclearance was not actually necessary given the existence of Sec. 2.
There is no political will to go back in time and restore the VRA to its former status, any more than there exists a political will to restore Roe v. Wade, or to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Civil rights advocates should consider abandoning the policy of lamentation and spend more time proposing solutions that the mass audience of today considers politically-sound and acceptable.
The record of John Lewis will be forever tainted by his decision to vote to overturn a free and fair election, on Jan 6, 2005, based on specious claims of election irregularities, such as computerized voting machines that allegedly rang up votes for the wrong candidate.
Luckily for Democrats who shared this view, maker Diebold was not as litigious as Dominion would be.
Key Precedents Overturned By The Roberts Court Include:
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022): Overturned Roe v. Wade (1973) and Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), eliminating the constitutional right to abortion and holding that abortion access is determined by states.
Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (2024): Overturned Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council (1984), ending the doctrine requiring courts to defer to federal agency interpretations of ambiguous statutes.
Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023): Overturned the precedent established in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) and Regents of the Univ. of California v. Bakke (1978), effectively ending affirmative action in college admissions.
Janus v. AFSCME (2018): Overturned Abood v. Detroit Board of Education (1977), ruling that public-sector unions cannot require “fair share” fees from non-members, citing First Amendment free speech grounds.
Shelby County v. Holder (2013): Struck down a key section of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, overturning the practical application of South Carolina v. Katzenbach (1966) by dismantling the formula used to determine which jurisdictions required federal approval for voting changes.
Trump v. Hawaii (2018): Formally overturned Korematsu v. United States (1944), which had previously upheld the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Ramos v. Louisiana (2020): Overturned Apodaca v. Oregon (1972), ruling that the Sixth Amendment requires unanimous jury verdicts in state criminal trials.
Knick v. Township of Scott (2019): Overturned Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank (1985), allowing property owners to sue in federal court for “takings” without first exhausting state remedies.
………………………………………..
This court keeps bulldozing longstanding precedents in defiance of public sentiment. And each time this court employs arcane arguments that only resonate with Libertarians.
The idea seems to be that this is the new, improved court with more insight than any previous court. But one has to ask, “Are these 6 Federalists really that smart?”
“This court keeps bulldozing longstanding precedents in defiance of public sentiment. ” Really? Dream on. YOUR sentiments, perhaps.
Nobody can explain to me why election rule changes in Brooklyn, the Bronx, and Manhattan would have to be preapproved in perpetuity, while Queens and Staten Island got a pass.
Are whites on Staten Island really that much less racist than Manhattanites?
Yes because they are mostly Republicans. Manhattanites are Democrats who are racist and intolerant despite what they claim.
Louisiana Decision Jumped The Gun
Some groups questioned if the lower court had jumped the gun in the Louisiana case when it moved quickly to ensure state Republicans would have an opportunity to draw a new map before conducting this year’s election. Technically, the case remained with the justices.
By returning it, the decision clears the way for the state to almost certainly redraw one of the state’s two Black-majority House districts, which would offer a pickup opportunity to House Republicans ahead of November.
The decision landed just as Louisiana officials were sending out overseas ballots and getting ready to open early voting for the primary, throwing a potential wrench into the timeline.
The justices gave no guidance, however, on whether the state should redraw its map before this year’s midterms, although the high court has previously ruled that changes to elections should be avoided too close to the actual date of an election.
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5863197-supreme-court-alito-jackson-louisiana-map/
…………………………………….
It sounds like this decision was election interference. Like it was an emergency to find 2 seat congressional seats for Republicans! To portray this decision in any other light is totally disingenuous.
The 200 mile long district linking Black communities is an obvious racial gerrymander.
The SC decision was made like 7 months ago. It’s the Left that tried to affect the midterm election by holding up the dissent opinion.
Step up brave red State and redraw districts as COMPACT using mathematics. For once do it right.
Which nation will nuke the US? Bets available…
POLL: Opinion of Court At 42%
Approval of the Court dipped in April to 42%, compared to 44% in January. Approval among Republicans fell to 70% from its January level of 78%, while approval among independents ticked up to 29% from 26%. Democrats also became slightly more approving of the Court, with the level rising to 19% from 17%.
Approval of how the Supreme Court is handling its job has declined during the second Trump term. In February 2025, approval stood at 51% and in March 2025 at 54%. Since then, views of the Court have become more negative, with this April’s approval the lowest since Trump returned to office. By early 2025, approval had recovered from the all-time low in Marquette Law School polling of 38% in July 2022, immediately after the Dobbs decision overturned Roe v. Wade, ending nationwide abortion rights. Approval has not approached the high-water mark of 66% it reached in September 2020.
https://today.marquette.edu/2026/04/new-marquette-law-school-poll-national-survey-finds-partisan-divides-on-most-supreme-court-cases-with-varying-views-of-trump-playing-a-large-role-including-within-republican-opinion/
……………………………..
The Roberts court has consistently disregarded public opinion. And that disdain is reflected in public opinion.
Courts are SUPPOSED to disregard public opinion. A court that lets public opinion play any part in its decisions is a CORRUPT court.
Exactly. The mob should have NO say in what the court decides. Slavery, after all, was VERY popular. Gah, some people are dense.
No Court is supposed to be influenced by public opinion.
Courts are to follow the law and constitution.
If the public does not like the law and constituton – they are free to change it.
The SC does not base decisions on public opinion, but on the Constitution/constitutionally passed laws.
Obama wants to gerrymander his own white mama!
Poll: 71% Trump Is NOT Honest
59% Trump Lacks Mental Abilities
A growing share of Americans question Trump’s mental acuity for the position. Nearly 6 in 10 (59 percent) say he does not have the mental sharpness and a majority (55 percent) say he is not in good enough physical health to serve effectively. Both are slightly more negative than they were in the February survey and are significantly more negative than last September.
On other attributes, 71 percent say he is not honest and trustworthy, nearly 67 percent say he does not carefully consider important decisions and a 54 percent majority say he is not a strong leader.
Top officials in the administration draw consistently low marks from Americans, with none of five asked about in net positive territory. The disapproval ratings are as follows: Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., net negative 19 percentage points; FBI Director Kash Patel, net negative 19 points; Hegseth, net negative 17 points; Vice President JD Vance, net negative 13 points; Secretary of State Marco Rubio, net negative seven points.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/05/03/trump-approval-ratings-poll/
………………………………
These numbers have to be sobering to Republican members of Congress. One suspects that the days of shameless fealty are numbered. But the poll also warns Democrats that 53% think they’re ‘too liberal’.
If Kamala didn’t Amendment 25 the man who pooped his pants on stage in Normandy — Dr. Jill had flown on AF1 from Hunter’s court room to Normandy the evening before, enabling her to lead Joe offstage to find a pott
a potty — while Macron was left to greet our centenarian vets; if Kamala did not Amendment 25 the man who declared “We finally beat Medicare” in his one 2024 debate; if Kamala did not Amendment 25 the man believed unfit to stand trial for violating the Espionage Act; then Trump is ejection proof.
” The stain of slavery and segregation remains with us,” Maybe with you. I’ve never owned a slave or segregated anyone.
Reprehensible slavery was legal by legislative vote of elected representatives.
Secession was not prohibited by the Constitution, was licit, and remains fully constitutional.
All Americans ever had to do was vote against reprehensible slavery.
People who disagreed with the constitutionally enacted law took up arms and started killing people at the behest of Lincoln.
Every act of Lincoln was and remains unconstitutional, including his failure to enforce extant naturalization law and Karl Marx’s “Reconstruction Amendments,” and must be abrogated and rescinded, placing America squarely back on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
Reparations for the Civil War, the communist American welfare state, and the continuing “War on Poverty” must be paid to taxpayers who paid and did not benefit from those unconstitutional conflagrations.
And Blacks shouldn’t worry that Trump wants to deport millions. It’s only Hispanics being deported. That has nothing to do with Blacks (except the 350,000 Hatians who’ve been living here).
350,000 Haitians?
How many of those are on “Temporary Protected Status”? “Temporary” still does not mean “permanent.”
How many of those left safety in Chile to slip across our southern border?
If anyone actually cared including commentors they’d know or understand gerrymandering of any kind is illegal in the United States. Mathematics would be used. There’s really confusion here. It’s not only federal but States, counties, cities and towns.
The level of crime is unimaginable and people blithely go along their way as incredible atrocities are occurring. Nonsensical atrocities is the character of these years.
I agree. The term “conflict of interest” is hardly mentioned anymore.
I blame Republicans for not having taken up arms as crime continues to soar and innocent Americans are murdered and robbed past imaginable.
Passed^^^
Gerrymandering is NOT illegal in the United States. There’s not a word against it in the constitution, and it’s been an accepted part of US politics for more than 200 years. Maybe it should be made illegal, but that will take 2/3 of both houses of congress, and then both houses of 38 state legislatures.
It’s the gerrymandering based on race that violates the Constitution.
Gerrymandering of congressional districts is NOT illegal.
Plenty of blue states have 0% Republican representation despite having a significant percentage of Republican voters.
You may decry the current political “spoils system”; but, it is not unconstitutional and the courts have consistently upheld states’ rights to draw their districts as they wish.
The Callais decision ruled only on RACIAL gerrymandering, barring ethnicity as a criterion for establishing congressional districts.
No one has lost the right to cast a ballot for the candidate of their choice.
Nice article, Jonathan, but I suggest that you beef up the value of your life insurance.