Im Gipper said:
Louisiana v Callais:
The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised on pages 3638 of the Brief for Appellees: Whether the State's intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Supplemental briefs for appellants are due on or before Wednesday, August 27, 2025. Supplemental brief for appellees is due on or before Wednesday, September 17, 2025. Reply briefs are due on or before 2 p.m., Friday, October 3, 2025. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by this Court's Rule 37.3. Word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of this Court's Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs.
This one looks
JUICY!!Basically the court held in 2022 that Alabama violated the VRA by making jerrymandered districts that were "not compact", which violated a standard that SCOTUS put forth in
Thornburg v. Gingles in 1986.
In this case, the district that Louisiana came up with for the second district was absolutely not "compact". It was sprawling and twined through the state.
So, on one side, the state will have to argue either that the Gingles test of compactness does not apply to redistricting where you are trying to advantage minorities, (good luck on that), the 6th District really is compact (good luck on that one, too), or that the Gingles test is flawed and needs to be revised / reinterpreted (possible wiggle room here, but dangerous, and will give Thomas the chance to really drop the hammer).
I like this case almost as much as the birthright citizenship case.
It takes a special kind of brainwashed useful idiot to politically defend government fraud, waste, and abuse.
