Cite as: 608 U. S. __ (2026)

THOMAS, J., concurring

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Nos. 24–109 and 24–110

24–109

LOUISIANA, APPELLANT
v.
PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL.

24–110

PRESS ROBINSON, ET AL., APPELLANTS
v.
PHILLIP CALLAIS, ET AL.

ON APPEALS FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

[April 29, 2026]

JUSTICE THOMAS, with whom JUSTICE GORSUCH joins, concurring.


I join the Court’s opinion in full. This Court should never have interpreted §2 (section 2) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to effectively give racial groups “an entitlement to roughly proportional representation.” Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30, 93 (1986) (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); see ante, at 23–24. By doing so, the Court led legislatures and courts to “systematically divid[e] the country into electoral districts along racial lines.” Holder v. Hall, 512 U. S. 874, 905 (1994 (THOMAS, J., concurring in judgment). “Blacks [we]re drawn into ‘black districts’ and given ‘black representatives’; Hispanics [we]re drawn into Hispanic districts and given ‘Hispanic representatives’; and so on.” Ibid. That interpretation rendered §2 “repugnant to any nation that strives for the ideal of a color-blind Constitution.” Id., at 905–906. Today’s decision should largely put an end to this “disastrous misadventure” in voting-rights jurisprudence.
Id., at 893.

As I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that §2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all. See id., at 922–923. The relevant text prohibits States from imposing or applying a “voting qualification “prerequisite to voting,” or “standard, practice, or procedure,” in a manner that results in a denial or abridgement of the right to vote based on race. 52 U. S. C. §10301(a). How States draw district lines does not fall within any of those three categories. Holder, 512 U. S., at 922–923 (opinion of THOMAS, J.); Allen v. Milligan, 599 U. S. 1, 46 (2023) (THOMAS, J., dissenting). The words in §2 instead “reach only ‘enactments that regulate citizens’ access to the ballot or the processes for counting a ballot’; they ‘do not include a State’s . . . choice of one districting scheme over another.’” Ibid. (quoting Holder, 512 U. S., at 945 (opinion of THOMAS, J.)). Therefore, no §2 challenge to districting should ever succeed.

Here is the direct link to the full Supreme Court opinion in Louisiana v. Callais (No. 24-109, decided April 29, 2026):
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/25pdf/24-109_21o3.pdf

Thomas’s concurrence (joined by Gorsuch) starts on page 38.

Last Updated on May 14, 2026 by Real KBrett