Alito Rebukes Jackson's Sole Dissent in Louisiana Voting Rights Case

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito issued a stinging rebuke of Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's sole dissent in Louisiana v. Callais, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. The court ruled 6-3 to bar racial gerrymandering, reaffirming Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act against intentional racial discrimination in voting districts while finding many current districts unconstitutional.

The opinion's finalization faced delays despite six votes for the majority and minimal fracturing among opinions. The case had been reargued and lingered unusually long on the docket. States struggled to adjust, with some delaying primaries or drawing new maps under tight deadlines ahead of midterm elections.

In a one-paragraph order, the court noted its clerk typically waits 32 days after a decision to send the opinion and judgment to lower courts. No party sought reconsideration, but others stressed the need for states to address the ruling's impact before elections.

Jackson dissented alone, demanding preservation of the challenged districts for this election cycle. Justices Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor declined to join her, though they dissented from the majority.

Jackson wrote that the ruling "has spawned chaos in the State of Louisiana." She claimed a "strong political undercurrent" and said the case "unfolds in the midst of an ongoing statewide election, against the backdrop of a pitched redistricting battle among state governments that appear to be acting as proxies for their favored political parties."

She added that the court's action, rather than avoiding "the appearance of partiality," was "tantamount to an approval of Louisiana’s rush to pause the ongoing election in order to pass a new map."

Alito called her reliance on the 32-day period a "trivial" objection that prioritized form over substance. He said waiting served no purpose when parties needed the opinion promptly.

He faulted Jackson's dissent for "lacks restraint" and making "baseless and insulting" claims, especially the charge of "an unprincipled use of power," which he termed "a groundless and utterly irresponsible charge."

Jackson recently told ABC News, "I have a wonderful opportunity to tell people in my opinions how I feel about the issues, and that’s what I try to do." Some colleagues view this approach as costly for the court.