Does Louisiana's congressional map (SB8) constitute an unconstitutional racial gerrymander under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment? Does compliance with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provide a compelling interest that justifies the intentional use of race in drawing legislative districts? How should the *Thornburg v. Gingles* framework be interpreted to align with the statutory text of § 2 and the Fifteenth Amendment?

• Sought to overturn the lower court's ruling that SB8 was an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
• Argued that the creation of the second majority-black district was necessary to comply with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
• Contended that complying with the Voting Rights Act should be recognized as a compelling interest to satisfy strict scrutiny.
• Asserted that the map was drawn to satisfy a court order and avoid a court-mandated map that would have ousted preferred incumbents.

• Sought to maintain the ruling that SB8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander.
• Argued that the State's intentional use of race to create District 6 violated the Equal Protection Clause.
• Contended that the map's boundaries—stretching 250 miles to "scoop up" black populations—demonstrated that race predominated over traditional districting principles.
• Argued that the State's attempt to protect incumbents did not justify the racial sorting.

• The Court held that SB8 is an unconstitutional racial gerrymander because no compelling interest justified the State's use of race.
• The Court noted that strict scrutiny is triggered when race "predominated" in decision-making; here, the State's goal of creating a majority-black district to satisfy a court order constituted an "express acknowledgment that race played a role in the drawing of district lines."
• The Court clarified that compliance with § 2 of the Voting Rights Act can be a compelling interest, but only if the Act actually requires the race-based conduct.
• The Court re-interpreted § 2, ruling that "less opportunity" in § 2(b) must be measured against a baseline of the opportunity other voters have, which is determined by the State's "combination of permissible criteria," including partisan advantage.
• The Court held that § 2 must be construed to avoid exceeding Congress's authority under the Fifteenth Amendment, which bars only state action "motivated by a discriminatory purpose" (*Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd.*).
• The Court updated the *Thornburg v. Gingles* framework: (1) illustrative maps cannot use race as a criterion and must meet all the State's legitimate objectives, including political goals; (2) voting analysis must control for party affiliation to show racial-bloc voting cannot be explained by partisan preference; and (3) the "totality of circumstances" must focus on present-day intentional discrimination rather than "effects of societal discrimination" (*Shaw v. Hunt*).
• Applying this updated test, the Court found that the Voting Rights Act did not require Louisiana to create the additional district because the original plaintiffs failed to provide illustrative maps that met the State's political goals (incumbency protection) and failed to control for party affiliation in their voting analysis.