Decided
Robinson v. Callais
Consolidated with Louisiana v. Callais (Voting Rights Act) (24-109)
Restored to the calendar for reargument on June 27, 2025. Justice Thomas dissented.
Holding
Because the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did not require Louisiana to create an additional majority-minority district, no compelling interest justified the state’s use of race in creating SB8, and that map is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
Judgment
Affirmed and remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Samuel Alito on Apr 29, 2026. Justice Thomas wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Gorsuch. Justice Kagan wrote a dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson.
Vote
6
3
AlitoRobertsThomasGorsuchKavanaughBarrett
KaganSotomayorJackson
Related Coverage
Jun 18, 2024Application (23A1142) to extend the time to file a jurisdictional statement on appeal from June 30, 2024 to August 7, 2024, submitted to Justice Alito.
Jun 18, 2024Response to application from respondents Phillip Callais, et al. filed.
Jun 24, 2024Application (23A1142) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until July 30, 2024.
Jul 30, 2024Statement as to jurisdiction filed. (Response due September 3, 2024)Sep 3, 2024Brief amici curiae of Alabama, et al. filed. VIDED.Sep 3, 2024Motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellees Phillip Callais, et al.Sep 16, 2024Brief opposing motion to dismiss or affirm filed by appellants Press Robinson, et al. (Distributed)Sep 18, 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/11/2024.
Oct 15, 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/18/2024.
Oct 28, 2024DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/1/2024.
Nov 4, 2024PROBABLE JURISDICTION NOTED. Probable jurisdiction is noted in No. 24-109. The cases are consolidated, and a total of one hour is allotted for oral argument. VIDED.
Nov 4, 2024Because the Court has consolidated these cases for briefing and oral argument, future filings and activity in the cases will now be reflected on the docket of No. 24-109. Subsequent filings in these cases must therefore be submitted through the electronic filing system in No. 24-109. Each document submitted in connection with one or more of these cases must include on its cover the case number and caption for each case in which the filing is intended to be submitted. Where a filing is submitted in fewer than all of the cases, the docket entry will reflect the case number(s) in which the filing is submitted; a document filed in all of the consolidated cases will be noted as “VIDED.”
Feb 10, 2025SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 24, 2025. VIDED.
Feb 11, 2025Record requested from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana.
Feb 19, 2025CIRCULATED
Feb 20, 2025Record received electronically from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana and available with the Clerk.
Mar 24, 2025Argued. For appellant in 24-109: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellants in 24-110: Stuart C. Naifeh, New York, N. Y. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. VIDED.
Mar 24, 2025Argued. For appellant in 24-109: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellants in 24-110: Stuart C. Naifeh, New York, N. Y. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. VIDED.
Jun 27, 2025These cases are restored to the calendar for reargument. In due course, the Court will issue an order scheduling argument and specifying any additional questions to be addressed in supplemental briefing. Justice Thomas, dissenting (Detached Opinion ). ). VIDED.
Aug 1, 2025The parties are directed to file supplemental briefs addressing the following question raised on pages 36—38 of the Brief for Appellees: Whether the State’s intentional creation of a second majority-minority congressional district violates the Fourteenth or Fifteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution. Supplemental briefs for appellants are due on or before Wednesday, August 27, 2025. Supplemental brief for appellees is due on or before Wednesday, September 17, 2025. Reply briefs are due on or before 2 p.m., Friday, October 3, 2025. The time to file amicus curiae briefs is as provided for by this Court’s Rule 37.3. Word limits and cover colors for the briefs should correspond to the provisions of this Court’s Rule 33.1(g) pertaining to briefs on the merits rather than to the provision pertaining to supplemental briefs. VIDED.
Aug 12, 2025SET FOR REARGUMENT on Wednesday, October 15, 2025. VIDED.
Sep 2, 2025CIRCULATED
Sep 24, 2025Brief amicus curiae of America First Legal Foundation filed. VIDED. (Distributed)Oct 15, 2025Argued. For appellants Press Robinson, et al.: Janai Nelson, New York, N. Y. For appellant Louisiana: J. Benjamin Aguiñaga, Solicitor General, Baton Rouge, La. For appellees: Edward D. Greim, Kansas City, Mo. For United States, as amicus curiae, in support of appellees: Hashim M. Mooppan, Principal Deputy Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. VIDED.
Apr 29, 2026Application (25A1197) of Phillip Callais, et al. to issue the judgment forthwith, submitted to Justice Alito.Apr 29, 2026Judgment is AFFIRMED and case REMANDED. Alito, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Thomas, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Kagan, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor and Jackson, JJ., joined. VIDED.
Apr 29, 2026Response to application (25A1197) requested by Justice Alito, due by 4 p.m. (EDT) on April 30, 2026.
Apr 30, 2026Response to application from Louisiana filed.Apr 30, 2026Response to application from Press Robinson, et al. filed.Apr 30, 2026Letter of Louisiana filed.Apr 30, 2026Letter of Press Robinson, et al. filed.May 1, 2026Letter of applicant Phillip Callais, et al. filed.May 4, 2026Application (25A1197) referred to the Court.
May 4, 2026To permit the losing party time to file a petition for rehearing, the Clerk of Court ordinarily waits 32 days after the entry of the Court’s judgment to send the opinion and a certified copy of the judgment to the clerk of the lower court. Sup. Ct. Rule 45.3. This period is subject to adjustment; the default applies “unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time.” Ibid. The Callais appellees have asked for the Clerk to issue the judgment forthwith so that “in the event of a judicial remedy,” the District Court may “oversee an orderly process.” App. 3. Appellant Louisiana does not oppose this application. And while the Robinson appellants oppose it, they have not expressed any intent to ask this Court to reconsider its judgment. Thus, the application to issue the judgment forthwith presented to Justice Alito and by him referred to the Court is granted. Justice Alito, with whom Justice Thomas and Justice Gorsuch join, concurs. (Detached Opinion ) Justice Jackson dissents. (Detached Opinion )
May 4, 2026Judgment Issued.May 5, 2026Motion to recall the judgment filed by Press Robinson, et al.May 6, 2026Motion to recall the judgment DENIED.
Recommended Citation: Robinson v. Callais, SCOTUSblog, https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/robinson-v-callais-2/