meta_pixel
Tapesearch Logo
Log in
U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Louisiana v. Callais

U.S. Supreme Court Oral Arguments

Oyez

National, Government & Organizations

4.6640 Ratings

🗓️ 24 March 2025

⏱️ 79 minutes

🧾️ Download transcript

Summary

A case in which the Court will decide whether Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitutes unconstitutional racial gerrymandering, even when drawn in response to a federal court finding that the state’s prior single majority-Black district likely violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.

Transcript

Click on a timestamp to play from that location

0:00.0

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

0:08.4

Mr. Awi Gingya.

0:10.5

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

0:13.7

Louisiana would rather not be here.

0:15.6

We didn't want to be in the emergency docket in 2022.

0:18.7

We didn't want to be on the emergency docket in 2024. And today, I mean, God bless, my friends, on both sides of this case, but we'd rather not be caught between two parties with diametrically opposed visions of what our congressional map should look like. But this has become life as usual for the States under this Court's voting cases.

0:42.1

And our fundamental question today is, how do we get out of this predicament?

0:44.5

Now, I think there are at least three ways to do that.

0:49.1

First, you should reverse on standing grounds because the only theory of harm in the red brief is that our black representative of District 6 will play into racial stereotypes by favoring the black voters of District 6.

0:58.1

Second, you should reverse on racial predominance because the District Court wrongly assumed

1:02.7

that our intentional creation of a majority black district, in light of the Robinson decisions,

1:08.6

automatically established racial predominance.

1:12.0

And third, you should reverse on the good reasons inquiry because the district court,

1:16.9

wrongly, in our view, believed that the Robinson decisions play no role in the strong basis

1:22.0

in evidence inquiry. And in the end, I want to emphasize that the larger picture here is

1:26.6

important because in an election year, we faced the prospect of a federal court drawn map that placed in jeopardy, the Speaker of the House, the House Majority Leader, and our representative on the Appropriations Committee.

1:39.4

And so in light of those facts, we made the politically rational decision.

1:43.2

We drew our own map to protect them.

1:45.7

This Court's breathing room precedents allow that decision. I welcome the Court's questions.

1:50.8

So as I understand your argument, we are to accept that the Courts, the Robinson Court,

1:58.3

required that there be two districts and that your only interest is in preserving two incumbents in north-east Louisiana.

2:09.1

That's correct, Your Honor.

...

Please login to see the full transcript.

Disclaimer: The podcast and artwork embedded on this page are from Oyez, and are the property of its owner and not affiliated with or endorsed by Tapesearch.

Generated transcripts are the property of Oyez and are distributed freely under the Fair Use doctrine. Transcripts generated by Tapesearch are not guaranteed to be accurate.

Copyright © Tapesearch 2025.