Supreme Court doesn't rule on Louisiana's second majority Black congressional district
The case is being closely watched because at arguments in March several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act.
The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life.
Justice Clarence Thomas noted in a brief dissent from Friday's order that he would have decided the case now and imposed limits on 'race-based redistricting.'
The order keeps alive a fight over political power stemming from the 2020 census halfway to the next one. Two maps were blocked by lower courts, and the Supreme Court intervened twice. Last year, the justices ordered the new map to be used in the 2024 elections, while the legal case proceeded.
The call for new arguments probably means that the district currently represented by Democratic Rep. Cleo Fields probably will remain intact for the 2026 elections because the high court has separately been reluctant to upend districts as elections draw near.
The state has changed its election process to replace its so-called jungle primary with partisan primary elections in the spring, followed by a November showdown between the party nominees.
The change means candidates can start gathering signatures in September to get on the primary ballot for 2026.
The state's Republican-dominated legislature drew a new congressional map in 2022 to account for population shifts reflected in the 2020 census. But the changes effectively maintained the status quo of five Republican-leaning majority white districts and one Democratic-leaning majority Black district in a state in which Black people make up a third of the population.
Civil rights advocates won a lower-court ruling that the districts likely discriminated against Black voters.
The Supreme Court put the ruling on hold while it took a similar case from Alabama. The justices allowed both states to use congressional maps in the 2022 elections even though both had been ruled likely discriminatory by federal judges.
The high court eventually affirmed the ruling from Alabama, which led to a new map and a second district that could elect a Black lawmaker. The justices returned the Louisiana case to federal court, with the expectation that new maps would be in place for the 2024 elections.
The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals gave lawmakers in Louisiana a deadline of early 2024 to draw a new map or face the possibility of a court-imposed map.
The state complied and drew a new map, with two Black majority districts.
But white Louisiana voters claimed in their separate lawsuit challenging the new districts that race was the predominant factor driving the new map. A three-judge court agreed.
Louisiana appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court.
___
Follow the AP's coverage of the U.S. Supreme Court at https://apnews.com/hub/us-supreme-court.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
a few seconds ago
- CBS News
Jim speaks with Jose Javier Rodriguez about his run for Florida attorney general
Jim talks to the former democratic state senator who is running to be the next Florida attorney general. James Uthmeier, a Republican, is Florida's current attorney general. Guest: José Javier Rodriguez/D- Florida Attorney General candidate Republican leaders from 17 other states Tuesday filed a brief at the U.S. Supreme Court backing Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier's push to enforce a law targeting undocumented immigrants who enter Florida. The brief came after Uthmeier last week asked the Supreme Court to step in and at least temporarily allow enforcement of the state law after a federal district judge issued a preliminary injunction to block it. U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams in April ruled that the law likely was preempted by federal immigration authority. Uthmeier appealed the preliminary injunction, but a panel of the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals rejected his request for a stay of Williams' ruling. Uthmeier last week asked for the Supreme Court to issue a stay, which would effectively allow the state to enforce the law while the underlying legal battle plays out.

Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
White House presses Fed for ‘dramatically lower' rates as meeting looms
The White House on Sunday demanded 'dramatically lower' interest rates as it raised pressure on US Federal Reserve chair Jay Powell for a Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
28 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Fact check: Trump calls to prosecute Beyoncé based on a nonexistent $11 million payment
President Donald Trump over the weekend called for the prosecution of music superstar Beyoncé – based on something that did not actually happen. Trump claimed in a social media post that Beyoncé broke the law by supposedly getting paid $11 million for her endorsement of Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris during an October 2024 event in Houston. But there is simply no basis for Trump's claim that Beyoncé received an $11 million payment related to the Harris campaign, let alone for the endorsement in particular. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment from the Harris campaign to Beyoncé's production company, which the campaign listed as a 'campaign event production' expense. A Harris campaign spokesperson told Deadline last year that they didn't pay celebrity endorsers, but were required by law to cover the costs connected to their appearances. Regardless of the merits of this particular $165,000 expenditure, it's far from an $11 million one. Nobody has ever produced any evidence for the claim of an eight-figure endorsement payment to Beyoncé since the claim that it was '$10 million' began spreading last year among Trump supporters on social media. Fact-check websites and PolitiFact looked into the '$10 million' claim during the campaign and did not find any basis for it. The White House did not immediately respond to a CNN request late Saturday for any evidence of Trump's $11 million figure. When Trump previously invoked the baseless figure, during an interview in February, he described his source in the vaguest of terms: 'Somebody just showed me something. They gave her $11 million.' A Harris spokesperson referred CNN on Saturday to a November social media post by Beyoncé's mother Tina Knowles, who called the claim of a $10 million payment a 'lie' and noted it was taken down by Instagram as 'False Information.' 'When In Fact: Beyonce did not receive a penny for speaking at a Presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harrris's (sic) Rally in Houston,' Knowles wrote. A spokesperson for Beyoncé told PolitiFact in November that the claim about a $10 million payment is 'beyond ridiculous.' What Trump wrote Sunday Trump revived the false claim in a social media post published after midnight early Sunday morning in Scotland, where he is visiting. He wrote that he is looking at 'the fact' that Democrats 'admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT.' Democratic officials actually reject the claim of an $11 million payment. The White House did not immediately respond to CNN's request for any evidence of a Democratic admission of such a payment. Trump went on to criticize other payments from the Harris campaign to organizations connected to prominent endorsers. He asserted without evidence that these payments were inaccurately described in spending records. And he wrongly asserted that it is 'TOTALLY ILLEGAL' to pay for political endorsements, though no federal law forbids endorsement payments. Trump concluded: 'Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' Trump has repeatedly called for the prosecution of political opponents. His Saturday post about Harris and celebrity endorsements was an escalation from a post in May, when he said he would call for a 'major investigation' on the subject but did not explicitly mention prosecutions.