WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday delayed a decision on the constitutionality of Louisiana’s congressional districts, announcing in a brief order it wanted more information and the case would be reargued in the court’s next term that starts in October.

The order, which came over the dissent of Justice Clarence Thomas, extends the years-long battle over redistricting in the state to at least this fall.

The dispute before the Supreme Court is whether the state’s second congressional map, drawn after a court ruling to include a second Black-majority congressional district and comply with the Voting Rights Act, violates the constitution’s prohibition on racial gerrymandering.

The order said the case would be re-argued with new legal questions in the court’s next term starting in October and likely decided by next June.

“In due course, the Court will issue an order for scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing,” the order states.

In a dissent, Thomas argued the court should have decided what he sees as a conflict between the VRA and the Constitution, and criticized that the court “punts without explanation.”

Thomas argued that prior court decisions have placed Section 2 of the VRA “in direct conflict with the Constitution” and that the justices should have decided it in that way.

“These cases put the Court to a choice: It may permit patent racial gerrymandering under the auspices of [Section 2] compliance, or it may admit that, as the Court has construed the statute, a violation of [Section 2] is insufficient to justify a race-based remedy,” Thomas wrote. “That decision should be straightforward.”

During oral arguments Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh questioned whether the section of the VRA in dispute in the case, which requires states draw congressional districts that allow minority voters to elect candidates of their choice, should apply anymore.

However, both Kavanaugh and Louisiana Solicitor General J. Benjamin Aguiñaga agreed that issue was not part of the case at the time.

The courtroom saga started when Louisiana adopted a congressional map with one Black-majority congressional district out of the six in the state following the 2020 census. Voters and voting rights groups filed lawsuits challenging the map, arguing that it suppressed the ability of Black voters to influence elections in the state.

A trial court agreed and ordered the state to draw a new one. Louisiana legislators drew a second map, this time with a second Black-majority district.

Then, a group of self-described “non-African American voters” then challenged the second map, calling it an unconstitutional racial gerrymander. A three-judge district court agreed, finding the state’s second plan unconstitutional for violating the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

With House control decided by a few seats in the last few elections, experts have said that redistricting, and court fights over the maps, can help tilt control of the chamber.

Last year, the Supreme Court issued a decision in a case over South Carolina’s congressional map that restricted claims of racial gerrymandering, which experts said made such cases harder to prove.

The cases are Louisiana v. Phillip Callais, et al. and Press Robinson, et al. v. Phillip Callais, et al.

©2025 CQ-Roll Call, Inc., All Rights Reserved. Visit cqrollcall.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.