This is Amicus Slate's podcast about the courts, the law, and the Supreme Court.

I'm Dahlia Lithwick.

This decision is truly an abomination, not just because we don't like the outcome, but because of all the principles that the court had to violate to get to that outcome.

On Wednesday morning, in a wholly unsurprising and yet utterly shattering moment for multiracial American democracy,

the U.S. Supreme Court, by a six to three margin, decided Louisiana versus Calais, tearing the heart out of

Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, without ever declaring openly that it was doing so.

The majority opinion, authored by Justice Samuel Alito, found that Louisiana's second majority

black congressional district was an

unconstitutional race-based gerrymander. This is all a 180-degree flip from a case involving

an Alabama redistricting map that was decided by the Supreme Court only three years ago. This is also

going to signal a sea change in redistricting law,

maybe possibly impacting the upcoming midterms, but certainly fundamentally reshaping voting

rights in the years to come. Joining me to discuss, the decision is Janay Nelson, president and

director of the Legal Defense Fund, LDF, the nation's

premier civil rights law organization. In October of 2025, Jenae argued Louisiana versus

Kelle before the United States Supreme Court. We spoke to her back then. Janay, welcome

back to amicus. Oh, thanks, Dahlia, for having me.

Janay, when we spoke seven months ago after arguments, you described the significance of this

case, the stakes, and your decision to argue it. Election law expert Rick Hassan just described

this as, quote, one of the most pernicious and damaging Supreme Court decisions

of the last century and slate. And before we dig into the details, can you just tell me how you

would characterize the impact of this ruling for the uninitiated? Those are all good words.

...