In a follow-up to its April 29 ruling in Callais v. Louisiana, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an unsigned order on May 5 allowing the decision—striking down the state's congressional map as a racial gerrymander—to take effect immediately. Justice Samuel Alito, in a concurrence, sharply criticized Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's lone dissent as 'baseless' and 'insulting,' highlighting tensions amid 2026 election battles.
The Supreme Court's April 29, 2026, 6-3 decision in Callais v. Louisiana, authored by Justice Alito, invalidated the state's congressional map for excessive use of race in redistricting under the Voting Rights Act. On May 5, Louisiana voters filed an emergency application to bypass the standard 32-day waiting period before lower courts receive the opinion, stressing urgency to prevent another racially gerrymandered election like in 2024. A majority approved in an unsigned order, noting the period is 'subject to adjustment.' Justice Jackson dissented alone, deeming the move 'unwarranted and unwise.' She accused the conservative majority of creating 'chaos' by overstepping into implementation. 'The Court unshackles itself from both constraints today and dives into the fray... Because this abandon is unwarranted and unwise, respectfully, I dissent,' she wrote. Alito responded in a concurrence joined by Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch: 'The dissent in this suit levels charges that cannot go unanswered.' He called her arguments 'baseless,' 'insulting,' and 'trivial at best,' rejecting claims of unprincipled power use as 'groundless and utterly irresponsible.' The exchange underscores escalating rhetoric on the court as redistricting fights intensify before the 2026 midterms.
