Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas filed a dissent to the Court's order to postpone a case pertaining to redistricting in Louisiana until next term, with the conservative justice highlighting the need for a "systematic reassessment of our interpretation" of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Newsweek has reached out to several legal scholars for comment via email on Friday.

Why It Matters

The Supreme Court, on its final day of issuing opinions for this term, said it would reargue the case, Louisiana v. Callais, concerned with congressional redistricting, next term. The Court will issue an order scheduling argument and "specifying any additional questions to be addressed in a supplemental briefing."

"Listing a case for re-argument is unusual," Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation, told Newsweek in an email.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965, signed at the height of the civil rights movement, is a landmark legislation aimed at preventing racial discrimination in voting.

Congressional redistricting plays a critical role in shaping the balance of power in the House of Representatives. Republicans currently hold 220 seats, while Democrats have 212.

What To Know

The case is concerned with the legality of the creation of a Black-majority congressional district in Louisiana, with a group having sued that it was illegal racial gerrymandering.

Black residents make up nearly one-third of Louisiana's population, accounting for 32.6 percent, according to 2024 Census data.

After the 2020 Census, the state legislature redrew its congressional map, maintaining just one majority-Black district out of six. The majority-GOP legislature later approved a new map that added a second majority-Black district, which is now at the center of the legal challenge.

On Friday, Clarence issued a dissenting opinion to the decision to reargue, writing, "Congress requires this Court to exercise jurisdiction over constitutional challenges to congressional redistricting, and we accordingly have an obligation to resolve such challenges promptly." Further into his dissent, he reiterated his belief that this case should have been decided this term, stating, "these are the only cases argued this Term in which our jurisdiction is mandatory."

U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Clarence Thomas appears before swearing in Pam Bondi as U.S. Attorney General in the Oval Office at the White House on February 05, 2025 in Washington, DC. Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images

He says that the case highlights the "intractable conflict between the Court's interpretation of §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA), 52 U. S. C. §10301, and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution."

Section 2 of the VRA prohibits voting practices that are racially discriminatory.

Thomas pointed to conflicts between the VRA and the Constitution in redistricting processes.

He concluded his dissent, reiterating his longstanding position, writing, "For over three decades, I have called for 'a systematic reassessment of our interpretation of §2.'"

"I am hopeful that this Court will soon realize that the conflict its §2 jurisprudence has sown with the Constitution is too severe to ignore," he added.

What People Are Saying

Cecillia Wang, national legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, told Newsweek in a Friday email statement: "Before this case ever began, we had already won a hard-fought legal battle, proving that the legislature's initial map, like Louisiana's maps for generations before, illegally diluted Black voters' political power. Thanks to the Supreme Court's order from May of 2024, which put the district court's injunction on hold, the fair and legal map the Louisiana legislature enacted in response to our litigation remains in place while the case continues next year. We will be back next term to once again defend the new map and the representation Black voters deserve."

Rick Pildes, a law professor at New York University Law School, wrote in an X, formerly Twitter, post: "Big news about race and redistricting: The Supreme Court has decided to reargue the Louisiana case next Term. Will likely open up bigger issues."

Representative Troy Carter, a Louisiana Democrat, said in an X post: "The Supreme Court's decision to rehear the case on Louisiana's congressional maps is a disappointing but not unfamiliar step in the long struggle for fair representation. While the Court did not overturn the map today, its refusal to resolve the issue only prolongs uncertainty."

His official statement reads: "Let me be clear: the map currently in place reflects the demographic reality of our state and the legal mandates of the Voting Rights Act...the map adopted by the legislature was a product of bipartisan negotiation, judicial review, and compliance with federal law. It is not racial gerrymander--it is a remedial measure responding to decades of underrepresentation."

Hans von Spakovsky, senior legal fellow in The Heritage Foundation's Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, told Newsweek in an email: "I hope this means that the court wants to give serious consideration and more thought to the very important issues that Justice Thomas raises in his dissent. Essentially, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act has been unconstitutionally used by legislators and courts for years to justify engaging in race-based redistricting that is a blatant violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. That is clearly what happened in this redistricting in Louisiana where race was the predominant factor used to draw congressional boundaries. The court has an obligation to step in and stop that practice."

What Happens Next

The Supreme Court is scheduled to resume its term in October.

Update 6/27/25, 3:00 p.m. ET: This article has been updated with von Sparkovsky's comment.