Louisiana v. Callais, a case about whether Louisiana’s congressional maps are an illegal racial gerrymander, should be one of the easiest cases the justices have heard in many years. That’s because less than two years ago, the Supreme Court decided another gerrymandering case, known as Allen v. Milligan (2023), which by Louisiana’s lawyers’ own admission “presents the same question” as Callais.

The Court will hear oral arguments in Callais on March 24.

In Milligan, the Court — normally quite hostile to plaintiffs alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act, which is meant to protect minority ballot access — surprised most Court-watchers by reaffirming longstanding legal principles, first established in Thornburg v. Gingles (1986), which are intended to prevent states from drawing legislative maps that weaken the influence of voters of color. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both Republicans, joined with all three of the Court’s Democrats in Milligan.

The dispute in Callais began with a Louisiana congressional map that included only one Black-majority district (out of six total), despite the fact that Black Americans make up about a third of Louisiana voters. In Milligan, the Supreme Court ordered Alabama to redraw a similarly gerrymandered map to include a second Black-majority district.

That similarity means there’s really no question how the Callais case should be decided. Nevertheless, this case is complicated because it forces the Supreme Court to resolve a conflict between two different federal courts, each of which has weighed in on Louisiana’s maps. One faithfully applied precedents like Milligan, ruling the state’s original maps needed to be redrawn; the other outright........

© Vox