No Way, Callais

For more than 60 years, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) has been a cornerstone of American democracy, protecting voters from racial discrimination at the ballot box.

The VRA has long prevented states from drawing congressional districts in ways that weaken the voting power of racial minority groups. In 2022, a federal judge struck down Louisiana’s districts, drawn by the state legislature. The judge ruled that by making only one of the state’s six districts majority-Black—even though Black residents make up roughly one-third of the state’s population—the legislature weakened the power of Black voters and likely violated the VRA.

The judge ordered the legislature to draw a new congressional map, this time including a second majority-Black district. In January 2024, Gov. Jeff Landry signed the revised map into law. But just days later, a group of self-described “non-African American” voters filed a lawsuit against it, challenging the second district.

That case, Louisiana v. Callais, made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court. This week, a majority of justices ruled that the creation of a second majority-Black district was unconstitutional. In doing so, the court reversed decades-long legal understanding of what is considered racially discriminatory redistricting, setting a new, higher standard for proving violations of the VRA.

The Supreme Court’s decision is a blow to equal representation and fair maps, dismantling essential protections in the VRA. The decision “eviscerates” the law, Justice Elena Kagan wrote in her dissent.

“The Voting Rights Act is—or, now more accurately, was—‘one of the most consequential, efficacious, and amply justified exercises of federal legislative power in our Nation’s history,’” Kagan wrote. “It was born of the literal blood of Union soldiers and civil rights marchers. It ushered in awe-inspiring change, bringing this Nation closer to fulfilling the ideals of democracy and racial equality.

“And it has been repeatedly, and overwhelmingly, reauthorized by the people’s representatives in Congress. Only they have the right to say it is no longer needed—not the Members of this Court.”

Image: Robert Alexander/Getty Images

This Week in Democracy

• In a 6-3 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Louisiana’s second majority-Black congressional district is unconstitutional. The decision further guts the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and sets a significantly higher standard for challenging racial gerrymandering in court. The new standard is likely to severely limit the number of those challenges and could influence the results of many congressional races.

  “Our government only works when its leaders equally represent the American people,” States United CEO Joanna Lydgate said in a statement. “This decision will not just hurt Black voters in Louisiana, but all voters who expect accountability from their representatives.”

  ➡️ READ: Our full statement

• Fulton County, Georgia, is continuing its legal effort to recover the county’s 2020 election records seized by the FBI in January. States United represented a trio of election experts and scholars in filing a brief in the case last week, responding to false claims about widespread irregularities in the 2020 election.

  “Time and again, claims of fraud in the 2020 election collapse under even basic scrutiny,” said States United Senior Counsel and Program Director Dax Goldstein. “Fulton County’s election was subject to extensive verification—including audits, recounts, and multiple layers of security—and those processes consistently confirmed the outcome of the election. This brief makes clear that these allegations rely on flawed analysis and ignore the safeguards that protect our free and fair elections.”

  ➡️ MORE: About the brief

• A federal grand jury indicted former FBI Director James Comey for the second time, now over an image he posted on social media containing the message “86 47.” Comey’s lawyers said they plan to once again argue that the charges are based on President Trump’s personal animus toward Comey and ask the judge to dismiss them.

  The Justice Department first brought charges against Comey in September, but a judge dismissed the case after finding that the federal prosecutor leading it was unlawfully appointed to her role. States United filed a brief in that case, arguing that the politically motivated prosecution of Comey represented a threat to the rule of law.

  ➡️ READ: How Politicized Prosecutions Undermine the Rule of Law

• A federal judge dismissed the Justice Department’s lawsuit against Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes that sought to force him to turn over voters’ private information. It’s the department’s sixth straight loss in its efforts to obtain voter data from states. The department has sued 30 states and Washington, D.C., for similar information.

  ➡️ READ: Sharing the Facts About Federal Efforts to Compile State Voter Data

State of the States

In Illinois, a state commission released a 204-page report documenting misconduct by federal agents during the surge of immigration enforcement in the state known as Operation Midway Blitz. The commission compiled evidence gathered during hearings with victims and experts, finding multiple violations of law and other federal misconduct.

The commission sent the report to state prosecutors and police departments, which will allow them to further look into the agents’ actions and pursue investigations and prosecutions where appropriate.

Gov. JB Pritzker, who signed the executive order that created the commission, characterized the commission’s work as “lay[ing] the foundation for real accountability.”

“It has gathered the evidence. It has heard from innocent victims. It has identified the culprits,” he said at a press conference. “But it will take the courage and conviction of all of us at every level of government to continue pressing forward, to ensure that these findings are met with action.”

Illinois is not alone in seeking accountability. Local prosecutors in Colorado and Minnesota filed charges in recent weeks against federal agents for misconduct in their respective states.

➡️ READ: What’s Breaking Through About Federal Law Enforcement Tactics

In New Jersey, the Trump administration sued Gov. Mikie Sherrill and Attorney General Jennifer Davenport over a state law that limits when federal agents are allowed to hide their identities while on duty.

“We’ve watched poorly trained, masked [U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)] agents put communities across the country in danger,” Sherrill said when signing the limits into law last month. “In this state we have drawn a line—no, not here.”

Davenport said that her office looks forward to responding to the Trump administration’s lawsuit.

“To this day, the federal government still cannot explain when its officials need to mask or forgo identification in violation of this law, or why they actually need to do so, particularly given the serious safety concerns inherent in anonymized policing,” Davenport said in a statement.

In Oregon, an appeals court ruled that federal officers can use crowd control tools such as tear gas against protesters outside of an ICE facility in Portland.

Lower court judges previously barred agents from using such measures. One judge found that there was “more than enough evidence” that agents used “persistent, excessive, and targeted violence” against people exercising their First Amendment rights.

In Rhode Island, a panel of federal judges declined to appoint Charles Calenda to permanently serve as the state’s top federal prosecutor. Then-Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Calenda to lead the office in December on an interim basis, a position that has a limited 120-day term.

The court’s decision to not appoint Calenda should have meant that his term expired on April 28. Instead, acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche simply changed Calenda’s title, leaving him in charge of the office. The Justice Department has used this scheme multiple times to try to keep their preferred prosecutors in charge where courts have declined to extend their terms.

But judges across the country have ruled that this strategy is illegal, disqualifying many of the administration’s prosecutors. The Justice Department is appealing several of those rulings.

States United has represented the Society for the Rule of Law in filing briefs in two of the appeals, arguing that the unlawful appointments of U.S. attorneys threaten the rule of law, run afoul of federal law and the Constitution, and embolden politicized investigations and prosecutions.