In Louisiana v. Callais, the Supreme Court ruled 6-3 to strike down a majority-black congressional district — a decision that could open the door for red states to eliminate electoral districts that tend to favor Democrats and affect the balance of power in Congress.
It stems from litigation over Louisiana's post-2020 redistricting plan that created a second majority-black congressional district — specifically the district represented by Democrat Cleo Fields, which pulled voters out of existing Republican districts.
Chief Justice John Roberts had described the district as a "snake" that stretched more than 200 miles to link parts of the Shreveport, Alexandria, Lafayette and Baton Rouge areas.
"That map is an unconstitutional gerrymander," he wrote for the six conservatives.
Project 21 Black Leadership Network ambassador Curtis Hill, a former attorney general of Indiana, thinks the case was correctly decided.
"We can't have a case that's based on equality under the law and suggest that we can use race as a way to create congressional districts," he says. "In this particular instance, we're talking about using race as the factor, creating a district based upon the belief that a certain group of people vote a certain way."
He says the Louisiana Legislature "took a jump" thinking that the federal government would come in and enforce Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and they drew this district up to make a majority-minority district.
They essentially tried to segregate the vote.
"They clearly and obviously used race in an inappropriate manner," Hill summarizes.
He thinks this decision will compel other jurisdictions to get away from the use of race as the sole factor or predominant factor in making such determinations.
A unanimous ruling for First Amendment rights
In First Choice Women's Resource Centers, Inc. v. Davenport, a religious liberty law firm is praising God for the Supreme Court's 9-0 ruling.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorney Gabriella McIntyre says they are thrilled about this "long-awaited" and "long-prayed-for" decision.
"The Supreme Court came in and ruled unanimously in favor of First Choice and said a very clear message in its opinion by Justice Neil Gorsuch that state officials who harass ideological opponents by demanding their private donor information will be held accountable in federal court," McIntyre tells AFN.
First Choice is a pro-life pregnancy center in New Jersey that received a "very intense subpoena" in 2023 from then-New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D), who McIntyre says made "no mystery of his distaste for pro-life pregnancy centers."
That subpoena asked for up to a decade's worth of sensitive information, including constitutionally protected information like the names, contact information and the last known place of work of many of First Choice's donors.
McIntyre says even the left-leaning ACLU filed an amicus brief in support of First Choice, recognizing that their First Amendment rights could also be infringed by an attorney general or another state law enforcement officer.
She says a line of cases has already determined that this donor information is constitutionally protected.
"We initiated a lawsuit in federal court in order to vindicate First Choice's constitutional rights," she reports. "That court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, saying that First Choice had to go to state court first in order to see if the subpoena was enforceable before it could actually vindicate its rights in federal court."
Meanwhile, a principle called res judicata basically states that if a state court could have or did consider federal constitutional claims, then federal court would be barred from considering those constitutional claims.
"You have to go to state court first, and once you do that, the federal courthouse doors are going to be closed to you, and you won't be able to litigate in federal court," McIntyre puts it another way. "Essentially what the court was saying is that 'you're in a catch-22.'"
That is the issue ADF challenged all the way up to the Supreme Court, and McIntyre praises God for this victory.
The case is still not over, however. The Supreme Court reversed the district court's ruling that kicked the case out of federal court, which means it will go back down to the district court to rule consistent with the Supreme Court's opinion.
McIntyre says this issue is strictly one of First Amendment rights and will impact all Americans regardless of where they live, because the Supreme Court has made it clear that state officials who harass ideological opponents will be held accountable in federal court.
