We will hear argument first this morning in case 24109, Louisiana v. Calais, and the consolidated case.

Ms. Nelson.

Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice, and may it please the Court.

A mere two years ago, in Allen v. Milligan, a case nearly identical to Robinson,

this Court noted that under certain circumstances, it has authorized

race-based districting to remedy state districting maps that violate Section 2.

Louisiana affirmed findings that, sorry, six appellate judge has affirmed findings, that Louisiana,

in the face of extreme racially polarized

voting, packed and cracked black voters, and it rejected seven non-dilutive maps in favor of one

that would give its 58 percent declining white electorate entrenched control over 83% of the congressional districts.

Louisiana's creation of a district to remedy that discrimination and to ensure that black Louisianaans have an equal opportunity to participate in the process is constitutional.

Precedent from Brooks to Milligan, from ex parte Virginia to SFFA confirm that.

And three facts guard against indefinite use of race.

First, not all Section 2 remedies center race. Second, when

racialized politics and residential segregation wane, so will the ability to satisfy

jingles. Third, almost every redistricting map is replaced decennially.

My opponents, late-breaking and recordless facial and as-applied challenges,

seek a staggering reversal of precedent that would throw maps across the country into chaos.

If SB8 is unsatisfactory, the proper recourse is to remand and adopt one of the many

alternative maps that address the Section 2 violation and satisfy the Constitution.

As this Court noted in Milligan, Congress is undoubtedly aware of Section 2 precedent and can change it if it likes,

but unless and until it does, statutory stare decisis, counsels staying the course. I welcome your

...