Louisiana v. Callais: Justice Thomas's Concurrence Signals a Narrowing of Section 2—DOJ Must Prepare

The Supreme Court's decision in Louisiana v. Callais (No. 24-109), issued April 29, 2026, did not strike down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, but Justice Thomas's concurrence signals a narrower approach. For decades, Section 2 allowed plaintiffs to challenge voting practices that resulted in racial discrimination, regardless of intent. The Callais majority held that Louisiana's congressional map was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander, but Thomas argued in a solo concurrence that Section 2 should require proof of intentional discrimination, not just discriminatory effects. The ruling itself does not adopt Thomas's view—it turns on the Equal Protection Clause—but the concurrence reflects a long-running campaign by Thomas to reimagine Section 2. SCOTUSblog reported that the ruling 'obliterated the commitment' of Section 2, though that characterization conflates the holding with the concurrence. The Brennan Center has warned that such a shift 'will be to allow racial discrimination and further encourage partisan gerrymandering,' but no majority opinion has adopted it yet. For the DOJ Civil Rights Division, the practical effect is heightened uncertainty. After Shelby County v. Holder (2013) struck down the preclearance formula, Section 2 became the department's primary enforcement tool against discriminatory voting maps. If Thomas's view gains traction, DOJ's ability to challenge maps based solely on effects would be constrained. Enforcement will now fall even more heavily on private plaintiffs—such as the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law—and on state attorneys general who can file affirmative litigation under state voting rights acts. The DOJ must redirect resources to pattern-or-practice investigations of discriminatory voting practices, enforce Section 3(c) bail-in provisions to restore preclearance for offending jurisdictions, and support private litigation through amicus briefs and intervention where appropriate. Without a robust federal enforcement presence, the machinery of democracy faces a significant threat.