Oral Argument on racial gerrymandering: Louisiana v. Callais скачать в хорошем качестве

Oral Argument on racial gerrymandering: Louisiana v. Callais

Oral argument audio (including transcript) of case [24-109] Louisiana v. Callais argued at the Supreme Court of the United States on Oct 15, 2025. More information about the case: Justia: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/fede... Docket: https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/d... Oyez.org: https://www.oyez.org/cases/2025/24-109 Argued on Mar 24, 2025. Appellant: Louisiana Appellee: Phillip Callais, et al. Advocates: Janai Nelson (for appellants Press Robinson, et al.) J. Benjamin Aguiñaga (for appellant Louisiana) Edward D. Greim (for appellees) Hashim M. Mooppan (for United States, as amicus curiae, in support of appellees) Chapters 0:00:00 Janai Nelson 0:46:38 J. Benjamin Aguiñaga 1:19:42 Edward D. Greim 1:39:36 Hashim M. Mooppan 2:24:39 Rebuttal: Janai Nelson Facts of the case (from oyez.org) This case involves a challenge to Louisiana’s congressional redistricting map, specifically focusing on District 6, alleging that the map is an impermissible racial gerrymander. The map was created in response to a previous lawsuit, Robinson v. Ardoin, where plaintiffs argued that the prior map violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by diluting minority votes. To address these issues, the Louisiana Legislature adopted a new map (Senate Bill 8) that included a second majority-Black district. However, the plaintiffs in this case claimed that this new map violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by prioritizing race in its creation. A three-judge panel concluded that District 6 of the new map did indeed violate the Equal Protection Clause, leading the court to issue an injunction against using this map in future elections. Question Does Louisiana’s creation of a second majority-Black congressional district constitute 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?