The Supreme Court sent a rather unfortunate message during discussions in Monday's racial gerrymandering dispute. Louisiana vs. Frey: Don't trust us.
To understand where that message came from, it is helpful to be familiar with cases the court determined to be roughly the same just two years ago. Flakes. in Allen v. Milligan (2023) the court ruled that the Alabama legislative map violates the protection of the Voting Rights Act against racial gerrymandering and that the state must attract additional black majority districts to ensure that the state does not illegally dilute the political power of black citizens.
now Fresh The case was wearing Louisiana in the same shoes and Alabama. Milligan. Louisiana's own lawyers admit it Fresh “I will present the same question.” Mill Ligan.
If the Supreme Court is an institution that applies its own precedent in a consistent and predictable way, the outcome is Fresh It's obvious. The court recently decided on a virtually identical case that ordered Alabama to portray the second Black Majority district, so Louisiana should have to portray the second such district.
Certainly Louisiana seems to agree. After the legal battle, councils eventually drew new maps in two black majority districts.
Nevertheless, in Monday's discussion Freshall Republicans in the court suggested that the courts don't care about recent precedents. They all seem to be looking for a way to hit these new maps. Those Four of Justice – Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Amy Connie Barrett – MilliganSo their questions are not really surprising. However, Chief John Roberts and Judge Brett Kavanaugh both joined. Milligan The majority seemed very skeptical of Louisiana's new map.
Monday's debate created uncertainty about whether Kavanaugh would block new maps of Louisiana in this case. Or it created uncertainty about whether different pending cases should wait until they reach court before attempting a ruling that would blow up the nearly 40-year Voting Rights Act.
Kavanaugh made it clear that he is not entirely certain that many of the voting rights laws are still needed. in Milligan Case, Kavanaugh wrote another consent opinion claiming that protections of the Voting Rights Act against racial gerrymandering must be on sunset days, and he repeatedly asked whether he should impose such a date Fresh. However, he suggested at some point that this question might have to wait until later. This is a consequence that could leave some of the anti-aging protection measures under the Voting Rights Act for now.
So, in the short term, there is uncertainty about whether the court will break through Louisiana's new map. However, all the Republicans in the court appear to be eager to waive the voting rights decision they approved two years ago. In the long run, it provides durability for court-suspecting decisions.
How did this troublesome dispute end before the judge in the first place?
Fresh In fact, it is one of two cases involving Louisiana's parliamentary map. In front of Fresh The lawsuit was even filed, and a federal district judge ruled in another case, Robinson vs Aldoinsaid that the original map of Louisiana (where there was only one Black Majority District) was interpreted in an original Supreme Court decision, and thus violated the Voting Rights Act. Thornburgv. Gingles (1986).
There were many twists and turns in Robinson The case has since been. In fact, the Supreme Court has temporarily said Robinson Litigation on ice while considering virtually identical disputes Milligan. But in the end Milligan It rejected Alabama's argument that the court should effectively overturn it Gingival It will then replace it with new rules that make it virtually impossible to create racial gerrymander suits under the Voting Rights Act.
After that, the court decides MilliganThe federal court of appeals said that the original map in question was Robinson It's illegal. At that point, the state decided to abandon the fight, convened Congress and draw a new map in accordance with the. Robinson order.
Usually, it will be the end of a conflict. The state had an opportunity to protect the old maps. Lost in several courts. And since the Supreme Court had already signaled that they should lose, it took a completely reasonable decision not to sue the case further. Milligan.
However, a new set of plaintiffs then challenged the new map of the state (this is Fresh (Incident) He claimed that the state violated the Constitution because he was so careful about race when he drew a new map. The state absolutely considered race when drawing those maps – it had to draw two black majority districts Robinson Court Order – But the Supreme Court was held Cooper vs Harris (2017) that states may engage in “racial-based districts” if they have “strong grounds of evidence” to conclude that they must do so in order to comply with the Voting Rights Act.
There was no doubt that there was a strong basis for Louisiana to conclude that when he painted the new map, he had to draw the second Black Majority District. However, two members of the three judge panel heard Freshthe one appointed by Donald Trump, nevertheless, has cast a new map of Louisiana. This trapped the state between two competing court orders. One prohibited the use of old maps, and another competing instruction from using new maps.
That's now Fresh The only question before the Supreme Court is whether the only question before a legitimate judiciary is whether the state can comply with a court order requiring that it portrays two black majority districts by portraying two black majority districts. As the state decides not to continue fighting the conclusions of lower courts. RobinsonJustice should not have the authority to question what happened in that case.
But that didn't stop many of the Republicans in the court from trying to involve them. Robinson. Thomas, Alito and Gorsucci are all defending Louisiana's new maps to lawyers defending Louisiana's new maps about whether the courts must accept them. Robinson “I'm given it.” (The correct answer to Thomas' question is “Yes.”)
Milligan The opponents have already made their views clear when the incident was decided, Fresh It's unlikely to turn on voting. The question is whether Roberts or Kavanaugh has changed his mind. Milligan It was decided just two years ago. Many of their questions suggest that they have.
Roberts and Kavanaugh seem to want to blow up the 40-year Voting Rights Act
Court decision Milligan It was one of the most surprising developments in the recent history of the court. nevertheless Milligan It wasn't just supporting existing laws – Roberts' majority opinion said Milligan “It was about an attempt at remake Alabama. [Voting Rights Act] Law is new” – Republican majority in courts are usually very hostile to plaintiffs in the voting rights law.
For example, Kavanaugh's suggestion that the racial civil rights law must go to sunset at some point is derived from the majority of Roberts' opinions. Shelby County vs Holder (2013) concluded that important provisions in the Voting Rights Act are now unconstitutional, as the United States was less racist than in the 1960s in 2013.
Roberts asked a few questions during that time. Fresh Discussion, a few questions he asked suggest that he wants to abandon the new map of Louisiana. For example, at one point he joined Thomas/Alight/Gorsuch Block and raised questions. Robinson It was decided correctly. At another point, he suggested that the new map was illegal as one of the districts resembles a “snake.”
The Supreme Court Robinsonthe plaintiff must demonstrate that it is possible to portray an additional, reasonably compact minority district. However, the plaintiffs met the burden while Robinson filed the lawsuit. The state says Congress chose not to use a more compact map of plaintiffs when drawing new districts because it wants to protect Republican incumbents who belong to the powerful House Appropriations Committee.
Existing law allows states to draw ugly maps than maps under consideration. Robinson. Certainly, the court's gerrymandering decision emphasizes that “rezoning is “mainly the duty and responsibility of the state.” Therefore, Louisiana should have been allowed to draw the map it wanted. Robinson order.
Still, Roberts' skeptical questions about snake-like districts mean he's looking for a reason to slap the new map.
Meanwhile, Kavanaugh has repeatedly raised his claims. Milligan The anti-aging protection under the Voting Rights Act requires an expiration date. However, he admitted that this issue was not raised. Fresh The plaintiffs say there is another case that passes through the court system that is much later in the case and more directly brings the issue of this sunset. So Kavanaugh may vote to support Louisiana's new map. He understands that many of the Voting Rights Act could be eliminated once other cases reach his court.
Even though Kavanaugh took his hand FreshHowever, it is not enough to save a new Louisiana map. If Roberts joins the four Milligan Opponents, that's a majority.
In the end, if Louisiana's map is discontinued, one of the biggest losers is a rather basic proposal that the law should work in a predictable way. Due to years of skepticism about Republican judges' right to vote, very few court observers expected to do what it did. Milligan. However, the ink of Milligan Opinions are hardly dry, and lawyers and lawmakers should be able to rely on Supreme Court decisions that are less than two years. Milligan The majority have left the court.
But if Monday's oral debate is any indication, Americans may not be able to rely on this court to even follow its own recent decision.
