WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court on May 4 allowed its recent ruling limiting a key part of the Voting Rights Act to take effect early, boosting the chances that Republicans can impose a new congressional map in Louisiana before the November election.
The court customarily holds on to decisions for a month after they are reached to allow time for the losing side to request another hearing.
Voters who won the case wanted the transfer to happen without the waiting period to grant more time for new maps to be drawn.
Black voters who feared losing representation in Congress opposed that request and argued the justices should instead hold onto their April 29 ruling until after the election because voting in the primary had already begun.
The court’s response to the emergency request was unsigned, but in a concurrence, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that Louisiana should not have to use a map found to be unconstitutional. There’s still time, he suggested, for the state legislature to adopt a new map.
In dissent, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson said the court’s decisions have “spawned chaos” in Louisiana.
Justices of the United States Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court Justices sit for their formal portraits.
On April 30, Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry put the May primary on hold, giving the state legislature time to approve a new map that could allow Republicans to gain one or two seats.
That suspension is separately being challenged in court.
A different court must decide how to apply the Supreme Court’s ruling invalidating the existing map. Before those judges can do so, the Supreme Court must send its decision to them, which makes the ruling final.
The justices typically won’t finalize a decision until the losing side has used up the time they’re given to ask that a case be reheard. Requests for a rehearing are rarely granted.
People rally outside the U.S. Supreme Court following arguments about Louisiana’s congressional districts on March 24, 2025.
In the Supreme Court’s opinion, a majority said that Black voters who lost the case “have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment.”
