Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →
Press Robinson, et al., Appellants v. Phillip Callais, et al.
Paid petition · United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, No. 3:24-cv-00122-DCJ-CES-RRS · judgment April 30, 2024
Before the decision, about 5× the 4.1% base rate. The model weighted this up for a direct appeal from a three-judge district court (mandatory jurisdiction) and a petition filed soon after the judgment below.
Questions presented
By January 2024, the Middle District of Louisiana and two separate panels of the Fifth Circuit had unanimously come to the same conclusion: Louisiana's 2022 congressional map likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act because it failed to include two districts in which Black voters had an opportunity to elect representatives of their choice. See Robinson v. Ardoin, 86 F.4th 574 (5th Cir. 2023). To avoid ceding its districting prerogative to the courts, Louisiana's Legislature enacted Senate Bill 8 ("SB8"), a new plan with two majority- Black districts. SB8 was selected over more compact plans that also satisfied §2 for the avowed political purpose of protecting favored incumbents and damaging a political rival of the Governor. After an extraordinarily - and improperly - expedited trial, the divided three-judge district court dismissed Louisiana's political rationale for SB8, failed to holistically analyze the plan, and ignored record evidence to conclude that SB8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The majority never afforded the Legislature the presumption of good faith this Court requires, imposed on the challengers the heavy burden of overcoming that presumption, scrutinized how the specific contours of SB8's Congressional District 6 ("CD6") reflected the Legislature's non-racial objectives, nor required the challengers to identify an alternative map that accomplished Louisiana's political objectives while also resolving the §2 litigation and retaining legislative control of the redistricting process. The questions presented are:
-
Did the District Court err in concluding that race predominated in the design of CD6 based on the Legislature's stated intent to comply with the rulings of the Robinson courts without presuming the good faith of the legislature, attempting to disentangle the Legislature's racial and political considerations, or requiring an alternative map that satisfied both §2 and the Legislature's political objectives, as required by Alexander v. S. C. State Conf. of NAACP, 144 S. Ct. 1221, 1233-1234 (2024)?
-
Did the District Court err when it disregarded the rulings of the courts in Robinson that the Gingles preconditions could be (and had been) satisfied and instead required that the State's enacted map satisfy the first Gingles precondition to survive strict scrutiny?
-
Did the District Court err in failing to accord the Louisiana Legislature sufficient breathing room to account for political considerations that resulted in a less compact district than necessary to satisfy §2?
-
Did the District Court err in relying on extra-record evidence and ignoring the evidence in the record on SB8's respect for communities of interest in concluding that SB8 failed to satisfy strict scrutiny?
-
Did the District Court abuse its discretion by unnecessarily expediting the proceedings and limiting the evidence presented in this complex, fact-intensive case? CONSOLIDATED FOR ONE HOUR ORAL ARGUMENT WITH 24-109. THESE CASES ARE RESTORED TO THE CALENDAR FOR REARGUMENT. IN DUE COURSE, THE COURT WILL ISSUE AN ORDER SCHEDULING ARGUMENT AND SPECIFYING ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Order of August 1, 2025: THE PARTIES ARE DIRECTED TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS ADDRESSING THE FOLLOWING QUESTION RAISED ON PAGES 36—38 OF THE BRIEF FOR APPELLEES: WHETHER THE STATE’S INTENTIONAL CREATION OF A SECOND MAJORITY-MINORITY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT VIOLATES THE FOURTEENTH OR FIFTEENTH AMENDMENTS TO THE U. S. CONSTITUTION. JURISDICTION NOTED 11/4/2024
Counsel of record
For petitioner
Stuart Charles Naifeh
NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc.
For respondent
Edward Dean Greim
Graves Garrett LLC
Argument & decision
Argued March 24, 2025 — J. Benjamin Aguiñaga · Stuart C. Naifeh · Edward D. Greim. Audio and transcript
Decided June 27, 2025. Opinion by Alito.
Proceedings
- May 06 2026Motion to recall the judgment DENIED.
- May 05 2026Motion to recall the judgment filed by Press Robinson, et al.
- May 04 2026Application (25A1197) referred to the Court.
- May 04 2026To permit the losing party time to file a petition for rehearing, the Clerk of Court ordinarily waits 32 days after the entry of the Court’s judgment to send the opinion and a certified copy of the judgment to the clerk of the lower court. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.3. This period is subject to adjustment; the default applies “unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.” Ibid. The Callais appellees have asked for the Clerk to issue the judgment forthwith so that “in the event of a judicial remedy,” the District Court may “oversee an orderly process.” App. 3. Appellant Louisiana does not oppose this application. And while the Robinson appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment. Thus, the application to issue the judgment forthwith presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, concurs. (Detached Opinion) Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached Opinion)
- May 04 2026Judgment Issued.
- May 01 2026Letter of applicant Phillip Callais, et al. filed.
- Apr 30 2026Response to application from Louisiana filed.
- Apr 30 2026Response to application from Press Robinson, et al. filed.
- Apr 30 2026Letter of Louisiana filed.
- Apr 30 2026Letter of Press Robinson, et al. filed.
- Apr 29 2026Judgment is AFFIRMED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined. VIDED.
- Apr 29 2026Application (25A1197) of Phillip Callais, et al. to issue the judgment forthwith, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Apr 29 2026Response to application (25A1197) requested by Justice Alito, due by 4 p.m. (EDT) on April 30, 2026.
- Oct 15 2025Argued. For appellants Press Robinson, et al.: Janai Nelson, New York, N. Y. For appellant Louisiana: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. For United States, as amicus curiae, in support of appellees: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
- Sep 24 2025Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. (Distributed)
- Sep 02 2025CIRCULATED
- Aug 12 2025SET FOR REARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 15, 2025. VIDED.
- Aug 01 2025The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised on pages 36—38 of the Brief for Appellees: Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Supplemental briefs for appellants are due on or before Wednesday, August 27, 2025. Supplemental brief for appellees is due on or before Wednesday, September 17, 2025. Reply briefs are due on or before 2 p.m., Friday, October 3, 2025. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by this Court’s Rule 37.3. Word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of this Court’s Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs. VIDED.
- Jun 27 2025These cases are restored to the calendar for reargument. In due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing. Justice Thomas, dissenting (Detached Opinion). ). VIDED.
- Mar 24 2025Argued. For appellant in 24-109: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellants in 24-110: Stuart C. Naifeh, New York, N. Y. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. VIDED.
- Feb 20 2025Record received electronically from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and available with the Clerk.
- Feb 19 2025CIRCULATED
- Feb 11 2025Record requested from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
- Feb 10 2025SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 24, 2025. VIDED.
- Nov 04 2024PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED. Probable jurisdiction is noted in No. 24-109. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
- Nov 04 2024Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 24-109. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 24-109. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
- Oct 28 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2024.
- Oct 15 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
- Sep 18 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
- Sep 16 2024Brief opposing motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellants Press Robinson, et al. (Distributed)
- Sep 03 2024Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed. VIDED.
- Sep 03 2024Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Phillip Callais, et al.
- Jul 30 2024Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due September 3, 2024)
- Jun 24 2024Application (23A1142) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 30, 2024.
- Jun 18 2024Application (23A1142) to extend the time to file a jurisdictional statement on appeal from June 30, 2024 to August 7, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.
- Jun 18 2024Response to application from respondents Phillip Callais, et al. filed.