[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-290746-105":59,"doc-detail-290746-en":131},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":124,"head_meta":126,"extra_data":128,"updated_unix":130},105,"en","louisiana-v-callais-et-al-no-24-109-syllabus","Louisiana v. Callais et al. — No. 24-109 Syllabus","","Supreme Court syllabus for Louisiana v. Callais et al., No. 24–109, addressing whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. The cases concern the constitutionality of drawing districts after a prior ruling found Louisiana’s 2022 map likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act. The Court holds the Voting Rights Act did not require an additional majority-minority district, so no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, making the map unconstitutional.",{"@graph":69,"@context":123},[70,84,106],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":40,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/louisiana-v-callais-et-al-no-24-109-syllabus/290746/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/louisiana-v-callais-et-al-no-24-109-syllabus/290746.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Ezra","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-17",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":105},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",17,{"@type":107,"mainEntity":108},"FAQPage",[109,115,119],{"name":110,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":112},"What legal issue does Louisiana v. Callais address?","Question",{"text":113,"@type":114},"Whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause, in light of the Voting Rights Act’s §2 requirements.","Answer",{"name":116,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":117},"Why did the Court apply strict scrutiny in this context?",{"text":118,"@type":114},"The syllabus explains that racial discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, and the central question is whether complying with §2 of the Voting Rights Act can count as a compelling interest justifying race-based districting.",{"name":120,"@type":111,"acceptedAnswer":121},"What is the Court’s holding about SB8 and the Voting Rights Act?",{"text":122,"@type":114},"The Court held that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, so no compelling interest justified using race when drawing SB8; therefore, the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":125,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":127,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":129,"site_id":62},290746,1789642492,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":132},{"doc_id":129,"user_id":133,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":134,"doc_module":4,"category_id":39,"category_name":40,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":135,"file_id":136,"file_url":137,"file_type":138,"file_size":139,"view_count":105,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":140,"language":141,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":142,"faqs":143,"seo_title":144,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":130,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},1099514068035,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_276721f389ce27ea32af1340a28f341c","Syllabus  \nNOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.  \nSee United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.  \nSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES  \nSyllabus  \nLOUISIANA v. CALLAIS ET AL.  \nAPPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE  \nWESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA No. 24–109. Argued October 15, 2025—Decided April 29, 2026*  \nThese cases concern whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. In 2022, after the State redrew its congressional districts, a federal judge in Robinson v. Ardoin, 605 F. Supp. 3d 759 (MD La.), held that the 2022 map likely violated §2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U. S. C. §10301 et seq., because it did not include an additional majority-black district. But when the State drew a new map, SB8, that contained such a district, the new map was challenged as a racial gerrymander. A three-judge court in Callais v. Landry, 732 F. Supp. 3d 574 (WD La.), held that SB8 violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the State appealed to this Court.  \nThe parties originally briefed and argued this suit last Term, and their arguments at that time highlighted problems in the existing body of §2 case law. One problem resulted from the rule that in racial gerrymandering cases, unlike other cases involving claims of racial discrimination, strict scrutiny is triggered only if race “predominated” in the State’s decisionmaking process. Another problem stemmed from the long-unresolved question whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act provides a compelling reason that may justify the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts. For over 30 years, the Court has simply assumed for the sake of argument that the answer is yes. These and other problems convinced the Court that the time had come to resolve whether compliance with the Voting Rights Act can indeed provide a compelling reason for race-based districting.  \n*Together with No. 24–110, Robinson et al. v. Callais et al., on appeal from the same court.  \nSyllabus  \nHeld: Because the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the State’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. Pp. 17–36.  \n(a) The Constitution almost never permits a State to discriminate on the basis of race, and such discrimination triggers strict scrutiny. The Court’s precedents have identified “only two compelling interests” that can satisfy strict scrutiny: “avoiding imminent and serious risks to human safety in prisons,” and “remediating specific, identified instances of past discrimination that violated the Constitution or a statute.” Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U. S. 181. The question presented is whether compliance with §2 of the Voting Rights Act should be added to this very short list of compelling interests. The Court now holds that compliance with §2, as properly construed, can provide such an interest. A proper interpretation of §2 requires examining the statutory text to understand what it demands with respect to drawing legislative districts. Pp. 17–26.  \n(1) Under Section 2(a), the Court takes as a given that a legislative districting map may constitute a “standard, practice, or procedure”that may violate §2 if it “results in a denial or abridgement” of the right to vote “on account of race or color.” Section 2(b) establishes that a violation occurs when political processes are “not equally open to participation by” members of a racial group “in that [they] have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to   elect representatives of th","cbCaiockWNIErLYZ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiockWNIErLYZ","pdf",707252,92,"English","# Supreme Court of the United States — Syllabus\n## Case background and procedural history\n## Question presented and strict scrutiny framework\n## Interpretation of Voting Rights Act §2(a) and §2(b)\n## Compelling interests and constitutional limits","[{\"question\":\"What legal issue does Louisiana v. Callais address?\",\"answer\":\"Whether Louisiana’s new congressional map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause, in light of the Voting Rights Act’s §2 requirements.\"},{\"question\":\"Why did the Court apply strict scrutiny in this context?\",\"answer\":\"The syllabus explains that racial discrimination triggers strict scrutiny, and the central question is whether complying with §2 of the Voting Rights Act can count as a compelling interest justifying race-based districting.\"},{\"question\":\"What is the Court’s holding about SB8 and the Voting Rights Act?\",\"answer\":\"The Court held that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, so no compelling interest justified using race when drawing SB8; therefore, the map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.\"}]","Louisiana v. Callais et al. — No. 24-109 Syllabus | PDF",232]