The United States Supreme Court convened on Oct. 15, 2025, to hear Louisiana v. Callais, a case whose implications extend far beyond the borders of Louisiana. Though nominally focused on that state’s congressional map, the legal principles at stake could profoundly affect Mississippi and other states with sizable Black populations, particularly in how they structure electoral districts in the coming decades.
Mississippi’s political geography remains emblematic of the broader Southern struggle over race and representation. Of the state’s four congressional districts, only one—the Second, anchored in the Delta and represented by Democrat Bennie Thompson since 1993—possesses a Black voting-age majority, roughly 61 percent. Given that African Americans constitute about 38 percent of Mississippi’s population—the highest proportion of any state—the legal scaffolding that has long sustained such a district stands in question under the issues raised in Callais.
The path of the Callais case has been anything but conventional. Initially argued in March 2025, the Supreme Court later took the unusual step of ordering re-argument, expanding the scope of review to a question with sweeping constitutional ramifications: Does the deliberate creation of majority-minority districts to comply with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act violate the Equal Protection or Fifteenth Amendment?
This shift marked a pivotal moment. Louisiana, which once defended a map including two majority-Black districts—reflecting its 30 percent Black population—reversed course. The state now argues that any race-conscious districting is inherently unconstitutional, a position endorsed by the Trump administration. This stance contrasts sharply with the historical approach of previous administrations, which recognized the necessity of race-aware remedies to ensure equitable representation.
The case itself arose from Louisiana’s response to a federal court mandate requiring an additional district in which Black voters could elect candidates of their choice. When the legislature complied, producing a map that sent two Black Democrats and four white Republicans to Congress in 2024, a new set of plaintiffs challenged the result as unconstitutional racial gerrymandering—thus setting the stage for the current dispute.
At its core, Louisiana v. Callais forces the Court to reconcile three overlapping yet sometimes conflicting legal principles: the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Fifteenth Amendment’s explicit prohibition on racial discrimination in voting, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, Congress’s statutory instrument for enforcing those constitutional guarantees.
Since the 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, federal courts have relied on a tripartite test to determine whether redistricting practices violate Section 2. The criteria focus on whether minority populations are sufficiently large and cohesive to form a majority district, whether their political preferences are unified, and whether white bloc voting typically thwarts their candidates of choice. Federal courts have repeatedly found that Mississippi meets all three conditions, documenting a persistent pattern of racially polarized voting throughout the state.
The October arguments revealed a Supreme Court deeply divided. Several conservative justices questioned the legitimacy of race-conscious mapmaking. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who only two years earlier upheld Section 2’s vitality in an Alabama case, raised concerns about whether such remedies should remain indefinite. Chief Justice John Roberts, author of that very opinion, appeared more skeptical this time.
The Trump administration’s brief proposed a new evidentiary standard: plaintiffs must demonstrate that racial voting patterns are independent of partisan preference. In Mississippi—where Black voters overwhelmingly support Democrats and white voters favor Republicans—such a rule would render much of the state’s electoral geography immune from Section 2 scrutiny, redefining racial discrimination as partisan alignment.
In contrast, the court’s liberal bloc defended the established framework. Justice Sonia Sotomayor questioned Louisiana’s abrupt shift, while Janai Nelson of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund warned that curtailing Section 2 would decimate minority representation, particularly in the Deep South, where nearly every Black member of Congress holds a seat created through Voting Rights Act enforcement.
The ramifications for Mississippi hinge on the breadth of the Court’s eventual ruling. A narrow opinion might leave the existing structure intact, but a sweeping reinterpretation could force a reexamination of all majority-minority districts. If Section 2’s constraints are weakened, Mississippi’s legislature could redraw the Second District—currently stretching over 300 miles—without regard to racial composition. Such redistricting could dilute Black voting strength and jeopardize the state’s lone Black-held congressional seat.
Mississippi’s ongoing litigation over state Supreme Court districts underscores the broader stakes. A federal court in August 2025 found that the current districts, virtually unchanged since 1987, unlawfully dilute Black voting power. Should the Supreme Court narrow Section 2’s scope, challenges to these and similar districts across local governments could falter.
Analysts estimate that up to 19 congressional districts nationwide could shift under a weakened Section 2 regime, with repercussions not only for racial representation but also for partisan balance.
The issues before the court resonate deeply within Mississippi’s long struggle for racial equality in politics. After the Civil War, Black Mississippians briefly held significant political power during Reconstruction, only to be systematically disenfranchised through violence, literacy tests, and poll taxes. Not until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did federal law restore genuine political participation for the state’s Black citizens.
Yet progress has remained contingent on judicial enforcement. From local school boards to Congress itself, litigation has been the engine sustaining Black representation against recurring attempts at dilution. Decisions such as Shelby County v. Holder (2013), which nullified the preclearance requirement for states like Mississippi, and subsequent rulings in 2021 and 2023 have incrementally reshaped the terrain. Now, Louisiana v. Callais may determine whether Section 2 endures as a viable safeguard or becomes a relic of a fading civil rights era.
A New York Times map captures with striking clarity the historical stakes of the current battle over Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. In its juxtaposition of two electoral landscapes—the present configuration and a speculative future absent federal protection—the map reveals both the persistence and fragility of Black political representation in the Deep South. The existing map reflects the cumulative impact of half a century of litigation and federal oversight: 24 Democratic seats, many anchored in majority-Black districts deliberately drawn to comply with Section 2. These enclaves, scattered across Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia and neighboring states, stand as the legal and political inheritance of the civil rights era. The projected map, by contrast, imagines the consequences of a Supreme Court retreat from race-conscious districting. In this scenario, Republicans would gain a dozen additional seats, nine directly tied to the dismantling of Section 2 protections. The map of the South goes from red interlaced with blue to almost solid red.
The court’s ruling, expected by June 2026, will likely define redistricting policy for the remainder of the decade. Depending on its reasoning, Mississippi and its Southern counterparts may either retain, revise, or relinquish their obligation to consider race in crafting electoral districts. The outcome will influence not only who represents Mississippi in Congress but also the broader trajectory of American democracy’s relationship to race and representation.
In this moment, Mississippi once again stands at the intersection of constitutional interpretation and historical memory—a reminder that the struggle for political equality, though transformed in form, remains very much alive.
Image: Demonstrators in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building on Oct. 15, 2025 (via MSN)
Instead of congressional districts being gerrymandered by race it would be better to represent voters by average Socioeconomic Status. Black, White, Asian etc. think and act depending on where they are in life and where they want to go. Healthcare, housing, safety etc are important to poor whites as it is to poor blacks. Congressional districts may not change much if SES was the criteria but at least we can get away from continually making everything a race issue.